Report of the - Comptroller and Auditor General of India PDF/Reporty No. 3 of... · 2018-10-01 ·...

Report of the

Comptroller and Auditor General of India

on

General, Social and Economic Sectors

for the year ended 31 March 2017

Government of Jharkhand

Report No. 3 of the year 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reference to

Paragraph Page

Preface iii

Overview vii

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

About this Report 1.1 1

Auditee Profile 1.2 1

Audit Coverage 1.3 2

Response of the Government to Audit 1.4 2

Compliance Audits 1.5 3

Action taken on earlier Audit Reports 1.6 4

CHAPTER – II

COMPLIANCE AUDIT AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT

Execution of dairy development schemes in Jharkhand 2.1 5

HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT

Audit on implementation of the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-

natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 2.2 22

FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT

Management of forest land in Jharkhand 2.3 44

RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Wasteful expenditure and cost escalation in construction of road 2.4.1 61

ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT

Undue benefit to the contractor 2.4.2 62

HOME (POLICE), JAIL AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Non-realisation of amount 2.4.3 64

Non-realisation of Government’s dues 2.4.4 65

HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT

Unproductive and unfruitful expenditure on Health facilities 2.4.5 66

DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT

Unfruitful expenditure on idle DPR 2.4.6 70

ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS

Unfruitful expenditure on bridges 2.4.7 71


Mis-utilisation of Government money-unnecessary construction of

bridge 2.4.8 74

Audit Report on General, Social and Economic Sectors for the year ended 31 March 2017

ii

APPENDICES

Appendix

No. Description

Reference to

Paragraph Page

2.2.1 Functioning of ultrasound centres by the same radiologist in

different centres/locations 2.2.2.3 77

2.2.2 Status of compliance of recommendations of statutory

bodies 2.2.4.5 79

2.2.3 Centres not having back up of images/slides for more than

two years 2.2.4.7(iii) 80

2.2.4 Change of machine and radiologist not intimated by the

USGs centres to the DAA 2.2.4.7(iii) 80

2.2.5 Delays in renewal/registration of USG centres 2.2.4.7(iv) 81

2.2.6 Delays in submission for renewal by USG centres 2.2.5.7(iv) 82

2.3.1 Process-flow chart for notification of forest 2.3.3.1 83

2.3.2

Details of forest land and total land in three villages notified

as protected forest vide notification no. 10152/52-5803-R

dated 27/12/1952

2.3.3.1 84

2.3.3 List of notified forest land/plots encroached by M/s

Electrosteel Steels Limited 2.3.3.1 84

2.3.4 List of suspected forest land sold in Chas circle 2.3.3.1 85

2.3.5 Unauthenticated release of land 2.3.3.1 85

2.3.6 Non-forest land pending for declaration as forest 2.3.3.3 85

2.3.7 Status of division wise forest area 2.3.4 86

2.3.8 Cases of unauthorised utilisation of forest land for non-

forest purpose 2.3.5.1 (ii) 87

2.4.1 Execution of road works in four packages 2.4.1 87

2.4.2 Provision of police guards to private persons without

approval of Home Secretary 2.4.3 88

2.4.3 Details of work wise administrative approval and technical

sanction 2.4.5 91

PREFACE

This Report for the year ended 31 March 2017 has been prepared for

submission to the Governor of Jharkhand under Article 151 of the Constitution

of India.

The Report contains results of Audit on (i) execution of dairy development

schemes in Jharkhand; (ii) implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal

Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994;

and (iii) management of forest land in Jharkhand. In addition, the Report

contains eight Audit paragraphs based on Compliance Audit of 27

Departments.

The Audit was aimed at assessing the functioning of schemes/programmes

during 2012-17 viz., human resource management, financial management,

management of implementation of schemes/programmes, supervision and

monitoring, internal oversight etc., and report the results in the Audit Report

as per the audit mandate of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to

the State Legislative Assembly for ensuring accountability of the officials of

the concerned administrative Departments.

Significant deficiencies noticed in the execution of schemes/programmes by

the concerned Departments are mentioned below:

Audit on execution of dairy development schemes in Jharkhand

Audit reviewed the milch cattle induction scheme (MCIS) and technical input

programme (TIP) aimed at attaining self-sufficiency in milk production and

for providing gainful sustainable employment to small/marginal farmers.

The MCIS under Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojna was implemented only in two

districts (Dhanbad and Khunti) during 2013-14, as the Department did not

release funds. In 2016-17, the scheme was not implemented as the subsidy

amount was reduced to 25 per cent (from the earlier 40-501 per cent) for

general category beneficiaries and 33.33 per cent (from the earlier 40-50 per cent) for SC/ST beneficiaries under a new funding pattern. The Department

did not have any information about the scheme defaulters (beneficiaries) as the

District Dairy Development Officers (DDDO) did not coordinate with the

banks to get these details and visit the beneficiaries as provided in the scheme

guidelines. The Department had not linked MCIS under BPL (female) scheme

with the target of milk production in the State.

The Department failed to provide details to Audit of procurements and

distributions under TIP for the period 2012-16 despite several requisitions/

reminders and assurance given (January 2018) by the Secretary of the

Department in the exit conference. The matter merits examination from a

vigilance angle, as also the fact that the Department awarded supply order to

an ineligible firm and paid ` 4.25 crore against supply of substandard mineral

mixture by suppression of quality test report.

1 50 per cent for Mini dairy and 40 per cent Midi dairy.


iv

Audit on PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Rules 1996

The Act and Rules prohibit determination and disclosure of sex of foetus. As

on March 2017, 250 (36 per cent) genetic/ ultrasonography (USG) centres in

19 out of 24 districts of the State had only 227 unqualified doctors and no

qualified doctors. Of these, 126 unqualified doctors working in 136 USG

centres in test-checked districts conducted 59,959 sonographies during 2014-

17 in violation of section 3(2) of the Act which stipulates that no genetic/USG

centre shall employ or take services of any person other than sonologist or

imaging specialist or registered medical practioner with post graduate degree

or diploma or having six month training (as per Amendment Rule 2014). In

addition, 18 radiologists were registered with 71 USG centres in five out of 24

districts during 2014-17 which implied that, on average, one radiologist

worked in three to six USG centres, against the permissible limit of two USG

centres per radiologist.

The State government had not constituted Sub-district Appropriate Authority

in any of the sub-divisions even after more than two decades of enactment of

the Act. Further, there was delay of two years in reconstitution of State

Supervisory Board and State Advisory Committee responsible for reviewing,

monitoring and supervision of the implementation of the Act at the State level.

These delays/inactions prevented implementation of the recommendations of

State and Central level committees such as restricting qualified doctors to

work in a maximum of two ultrasound clinics in a district, setting up online

grievance/complaint portal for receiving complaints, inspecting ultrasound

clinics by State Level Monitoring committee, tracking online form F2, GIS

mapping of USG centres etc.

The State Inspection and Monitoring Committee did not carry out any field

visit or inspect any USG centre during 2014-17. District Appropriate

Authorities conducted only three per cent (244 out of 8,608 targeted

inspections) and two per cent (96 out of 5,060 inspections required) in the test

checked districts during 2014-17.

Audit on management of forest land in Jharkhand

Though 19.185 lakh hectare was declared as protected forest through

preliminary notifications mostly between 1952 and 1967 under the Indian

Forest Act, 1927, the Department failed to issue a single final notification in

the last 65 years. Similarly, the Department failed to finally notify Palamu

wildlife (Betla National Park) sanctuary and Mahuadanr wolf sanctuary,

although preliminary notifications were issued in June and July 1976

respectively. Consequently, there were coordination deficits between Forest

Department and Land Revenue Department regarding exact forest boundaries

within revenue plots and resulted in encroachments in forest area, sale and

purchase of forest land, unauthorised use of forest land etc. In addition,

arrangements for alternative livelihood of affected right holders in the

2 Form for maintenance of record in case of Prenatal Diagnostic test/procedure by genetic

clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre

Preface

v

sanctuary area were not ensured. The Department also failed to prevent

encroachment of 25,181 hectare forest land, and notify (as reserved/ protected

forest), 760.41 hectare non-forest land transferred for compensatory

afforestation in seven out of 12 test checked forest divisions.

Audit paragraphs

The eight Audit Paragraphs covered in this Report relate to various

departments indicating deficiencies such as absence of compliance with rules

and regulations, audit against propriety, cases of expenditure without adequate

justification and failure of oversight/administrative control. Significant

observations include the unauthorised deputing of police guards to private

persons.

The instances mentioned in this Report are among those which came to notice

in the course of test audit for the period 2016-17 as well as those which came

to notice in earlier years but could not be reported in previous Audit Reports.

Instances relating to the period subsequent to year 2016-17 have also been

included, wherever necessary.

The audit has been conducted in conformity with the Auditing Standards 2002

and Regulations on Audit and Accounts, 2007 issued by the Comptroller and

Auditor General of India.

vii

OVERVIEW

This Report comprises two chapters. Chapter I presents the planning and

extent of audit and a brief analysis on the expenditure of major Departments

along with responses of Government to the Audit Inspection Reports/Audit

Reports and action taken on these. Chapter II deals with the findings of three

Compliance Audits on (i) execution of dairy development schemes in

Jharkhand; (ii) implementation of the provisions of pre-conception and pre-

natal diagnostic techniques (prohibition of sex selection) Act 1994 and (iii)

management of forest land in Jharkhand besides, eight Audit Paragraphs in

various Departments. The audit findings included in this Report have total

money value of ` 120.28 crore covering systemic deficiencies,

misappropriation, fraud, loss, wasteful/ unfruitful expenditures, avoidable

extra expenditure, undue favours, excess payments etc.

The audit has been conducted in conformity with the Auditing Standards of

the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Audit samples have been drawn

based on Simple Random Sampling without Replacement method. The

specific audit methodology adopted has been mentioned in each Compliance

Audit. The audit conclusions have been drawn and recommendations have

been made taking into consideration the views of the State Government. The

main audit findings are summarised in this overview.

1. Compliance Audit of Programmes/Activities/Departments

(i) Audit on execution of dairy development schemes in Jharkhand

The Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department

(Department) launched (between August 2004 and February 2009) six dairy

development schemes to attain self-sufficiency in milk production and to

generate gainful sustainable employment for the small and marginal farmers

and agricultural labourers. Audit reviewed two schemes viz., Milch Cattle

Induction Scheme (MCIS) and Technical Input Programme (TIP) involving

expenditure of ` 242 crore (78 per cent of the total expenditure of ` 312 crore

on the six schemes during 2012-17). The important Audit findings are:

Status of dairy and planning

The targets for milk production fixed by the Department were 61 per cent of

the per capita requirement as estimated by Indian Council of Medical

Research and 52 per cent of the National average per capita daily availability

of milk. The actual production was only 41.41 per cent of the National

average as the Department did not prepare any plan specifying the milestones

and timelines to achieve the requirement of milk to attain self-sufficiency in

milk production.

The average growth of milk production in the State during the 12th

five year

plan (FYP) over 11th

FYP was 17.52 per cent whereas the National growth

during the same plan periods was 25.82 per cent. Further, the cumulative

growth of milk production in Jharkhand (12.80 per cent) during 12 FYP was

less when compared with the growth of milk production of the neighboring

States of Orissa (16.18 per cent), Chhattisgarh (18.04 per cent) and Bihar

(27.26 per cent). Had the targets been planned and fixed based on measurable

parameters like the number of Artificial Insemination (AI) to be carried out,


viii

expected number of calves to be born, targeted number of female calves to be

brought into milking progeny etc., through adequate monitoring and follow-

up, these could have yielded desired results.

Recommendation

The Department needs to develop appropriate strategies and measurable parameters at every level of scheme implementation indicating clear milestones and timelines to attain its objectives in milk production.

Paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.5

Human Resource Management

The Department faces an overall vacancy of 55 per cent (155 posts) at various

levels which included critical vacancies of 34 per cent in the posts of the

District Dairy Development Officer (DDDO) at district level and 56 per cent in the posts of Dairy Technical Officer (DTO) at village level. The Statistical

Cell in the Department was non-functional since its creation. These

shortcomings adversely affected the implementation of the dairy development

schemes in the State. As a result, the Department did not have any information

on actual number of cattle inducted under MCIS nor the amount of subsidy

parked in banks. Supervision and follow up of the distributed cattle under

MCIS as envisaged in the scheme guidelines was also not carried out.

Recommendation

The Department should take appropriate measures to fill up the critical vacancies to ensure field visits by the DDDOs/DTOs, to ensure coordination with banks by the DDDOs to ascertain the reasons for failure of the beneficiaries to repay their loans and to make the Statistical cell functional.

Paragraph 2.1.3

Parking of Government funds in bank accounts

During 2012-17, the DDDOs in the six test checked districts released ` 82.85

crore subsidy to banks for inducting 18,452 cattle. Though only 9,584 cattle

could be purchased by utilising the subsidy of ` 37.78 crore, the Department

did not make any effort to get refund of undisbursed subsidy of ` 45.07 crore

and charge interest from the banks. In the remaining 18 districts of the State,

the Department neither had any statistics regarding number of cattle actually

purchased nor ascertained the amount of subsidy parked in banks in the State

as a whole. The DDDOs merely transferred funds received from the

Department to the banks and declared the schemes as implemented without

actually implementing the scheme.

Recommendation

The Department should ascertain the amount of subsidy parked in banks in the entire State and charge interest from banks on the unutilised subsidy, which was not remitted to beneficiaries within the stipulated period. Besides, the Department should not release further subsidy till the unutilised subsidy with the banks is adjusted.

Paragraph 2.1.6.3

Overview

ix

Milch cattle induction schemes (MCIS) and productivity enhancement

The MCIS under Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojna (RKVY) could not provide

employment to 30 per cent (1,553 out of 5,208) of the intended beneficiaries

and failed to induct 15 per cent (2,854 out of 18,777) of the targeted cattle in

the State as the Department released subsidy for induction of only 15,923

cattle in both the phases. The main reason for short release of subsidy in the

second phase was on account of absence of claims by the concerned banks

against 1,481 beneficiaries who failed to pay their instalments against loans

received in the first phase. Reasons for short release in the first phase were not

on record. Further, the scheme was not implemented in 2016-17 as the subsidy

amount was reduced to 25 per cent for beneficiaries of general category (from

the earlier 40-501 per cent) and 33.33 per cent for SC/ST categories (from the

earlier 40-50 per cent) under a new funding pattern implemented by GoI.

The MCIS under BPL (female) scheme was aimed to provide gainful

employment to the rural BPL women. The scheme could not provide

sustainable employment to 89.49 per cent (16,446 out of 18,176 beneficiaries)

beneficiaries and failed to induct 53 per cent (13,924 out of 26,148) of

targeted cattle during 2015-17 mainly due to failure of the DDDOs to facilitate

the beneficiaries by organising pashu-mela in their premises for purchase of

cattle. In addition, the scheme did not cover nine out of 24 districts of the State

as milk route was not established by MILKFED.

The performance of the two-milch cattle dairy was poor (8.40 per cent of

target), when compared to the five or more cattle dairies (where performance

ranged between 45.76 per cent and 68.08 per cent) as the two-milch cattle

dairy do not provide sustainable source of income to the beneficiary round the

year resulting from the fact that the cattle ceases to give milk at least for two

months during pregnancy cycle. In addition, the beneficiaries get subsidy for

purchase of second phase only in the following financial year, irrespective of

the prescribed period of six months. This breaks continuity in availability of

milk for sale by the beneficiary. In contrast, in other dairy schemes where the

number of cattle is more than one, the beneficiary gets milk round the year by

spacing the pregnancy cycle of different cattle to maintain the availability of

milk.

During 2012-17, only 27.27 per cent (46,322 out of 1.70 lakh) of the female

calves could be converted into milking progeny as the Department could not

ensure the rearing of these female calves for the very fact that only ` 1.08

crore was released for this purpose during entire 12 FYP period against the

requirement of ` 10.71 crore.

Recommendation

Considering the objective to attain self-sufficiency in milk production and provide gainful employment, the Department should provide adequate funds for promoting mini, midi, commercial and modern dairies besides streamlining the two-milch cattle dairies by providing the second cattle within six months.

1 50 per cent for Mini dairy and 40 per cent Midi dairy.


x

Further, the Department should fix target for production of female calves and provide required funds to rear the female calves for maximum conversion into milking progeny

Paragraph 2.1.7.1

Technical Input Programme (TIP)

The Department failed to furnish Audit with records relating to procurement

and distribution of technical inputs valued at ` 43 crore for the period 2012-16

despite several requisitions/ reminders and assurance given (January 2018) by

the Secretary of the Department. Audit also observed that the Assistant

Director (Drawing and Disbursing Officer) fraudulently withdrew (March

2017) ` 7.82 lakh twice from the Doranda Treasury on the strength of same

invoice.

Recommendation

The failure of the Department to furnish records to Audit and the double withdrawal by the Assistant Director, merit vigilance investigation.

Paragraph 2.1.7.2

Irregular payment of `̀̀̀ 4.25 crore

The Department suppressed the quality test report of mineral mixture supplied

by an illegible firm and purchased substandard mineral mixture for ` 4.25

crore.

Recommendation

The entire procedure of selection of an ineligible firm, suppression of quality test report and payment of ` 4.25 crore merits vigilance investigation.

Paragraph 2.1.7.2 (iii)

Monitoring

The Department did not: (i) define any key performance indicators (KPI) for

evaluation of programmes; (ii) undertake mandatory third party monitoring

and evaluation; (iii) ensure monitoring of schemes through field visits by

DDDOs/ District Animal Husbandry Officers; (iv) establish Management

Information System (MIS); (v) perform internal audit.

Recommendation

The Department should prescribe and ensure adherence to monitoring and oversight procedures at all levels.

Paragraph 2.1.8

(ii) Audit on implementation of the provisions of Pre-conception and

Pre-natal diagnostic techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,

1994

Human resources management

As per information provided by the PCPNDT Cell of National Health Mission,

250 (36 per cent) out of 702 genetic/ultrasonography (USG) centres in 19 out

of 24 districts of the State as on March 2017, engaged 227 unqualified doctors

(38 per cent) out of total 599 doctors employed in total USG centres in the

Overview

xi

State without any qualified doctors on their panel. Of these, 87 USG centres

engaged 81 MBBS doctors without any experience or training, 163 USG

centres appointed 146 MBBS doctors, who, though having one year

experience/six months training, had not cleared the mandatory Competency

Based Evaluation (CBE)2. In the test-checked districts, 126 unqualified

doctors working in 136 USG centres conducted 59,959 sonography3 during

2014-17 of which, 604 were done by 56 inexperienced and untrained MBBS

doctors in 61 USG centres.

In five out of 24 districts, 18 radiologists were registered with 71 USG centres

during 2014-17, each radiologist working in between three to six USG centres,

violating Government of India stipulations of a maximum of two USG centres

per radiologist.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate appropriate action against (i) unqualified doctors performing sonographies, (ii) USG centres who permit such unqualified doctors to perform sonographies, and (iii) DAAs who registered such USG centres despite their not having qualified doctors.

Paragraphs 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3

Monitoring and inspection for implementation of the Act

The State government had not constituted Sub-district Appropriate Authorities

in any of the sub-divisions even after more than two decades of enactment of

the Act. Further, there was delay of two years in reconstitution of State

Supervisory Board and State Advisory Committee for reviewing, monitoring

and supervision of the implementation of the Act at the State level. These

shortcomings prevented implementation of the recommendations of State and

Central level committees such as restricting qualified doctors to work in a

maximum of two ultrasound clinics in a district, setting up online

grievance/complaint portal for receiving complaints, inspecting ultrasound

clinics by State Level Monitoring committee, tracking online form F4,

geographic information system (GIS) mapping of USG centres etc. This also

resulted in failure to monitor and inspect implementation of the Act as evident

from non-maintenance of essential records for conducting sonography of

pregnant women in 2,257 cases, sonography conducted without referral slips

of registered medical practitioners in 979 cases, engagement of radiologists

other than the registered radiologists in 14 USG centres.

Recommendation

The Department should establish Sub-district Appropriate Authorities at the earliest to strengthen the institutional arrangements to fulfil the mandate of the Act and ensure strengthening of supervisory and advisory committees.

Paragraphs 2.2.4.2 and 2.2.4.3

2 Rule 9 of PCPNDT (six months training ) Rules, 2014 stipulates that the registered medical

practioners employed in a USG centre on the basis of one year experience or six months

training shall have to clear CBE examination. 3 To observe foetal growth or study bodily organs

4 Form for maintenance of record in case of Prenatal Diagnostic test/procedure by genetic

clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre


xii

The State Inspection and Monitoring Committee (SIMC) neither carried out

any field visit nor inspected any USG centre during 2014-17. The District

Appropriate Authorities (DAA) conducted only three per cent (244 out of

8,608 inspections) of targeted inspections in the State during 2014-17. In test

checked districts, inspections by DAAs were only to the extent of two per cent during 2014-17 (96 against required 5,060 inspections).

Audit verification of records of nine USG centres (whose inspections by the

concerned DAAs had revealed no irregularities) revealed deficiencies such as

non-maintenance of basic records by the centres, USGs conducted by

unqualified doctors, unavailability of backup of images, absence of name,

registration number and qualification of radiologist on the display board etc.

Recommendation

The Department should ensure required numbers of inspections by SIMC and DAAs and shall take appropriate action against those DAAs whose inspections of the nine USG centres did not reveal the irregularities noticed by Audit.

Paragraph 2.2.4.7 (i) & (ii)

Joint physical inspection of 72 USG centres by Audit and Departmental

officials revealed several violations, including 21 USG centres functioning

illegally due to their delayed renewal and approval, non-maintenance of vital

records in 61 per cent of 3,717 cases for conducting sonography of pregnant

women, absence of referral slips of registered medical practitioners in 26 per cent of 3,717 cases for doing sonography, non-submission of monthly reports

by USG centres in 65 per cent cases etc.

Recommendation

The Department should ensure regular inspection of USG centres to prevent violations of the Act, and take appropriate corrective action.

Paragraph 2.2.4.7 (iii)

The Department has not completed till date (May 2018) development of online

grievance/complaint portal and comprehensive website for information on

implementation of the PCPNDT Act even after more than three years of

instructions (May 2015) by Government of India. Resultantly, not a single

complaint was recorded in the Department against violation of the Act, as

noticed by Audit.

Recommendation

The Department should develop and make operational the website and ensure that online grievance redressal system is functional at the earliest. The website should carry information about the status of the redressal along with the authority with whom it is pending.

Paragraph 2.2.4.9 (i)

(iii) Audit on management of forest land in Jharkhand

Jharkhand has 23.605 lakh hectare recorded forest area, of which 19.185 lakh

hectare (81 per cent) was declared as protected forest by the State Government

through preliminary notifications issued mostly between 1952 and 1967 under

Overview

xiii

the Indian Forest Act, 1927. However, the Department headquarters have not

maintained any records of preliminary notifications. In 12 test checked forest

divisions, Audit verified 86 preliminary notifications involving 7.33 lakh

hectare (38 per cent) out of 19.185 lakh hectare protected forest of the State.

Major audit findings are:

Human resource management

There was acute shortage in cutting-edge field officials of the Forest

Department. As at March 2018, the vacancy for the posts of ‘Forester’, ‘Forest

Guard’ and ‘Amin’ were to the extent of 73 per cent, 43 per cent and 78 per cent respectively. This significantly affected the achievement of Departmental

mandates such as guarding the forest boundaries, maintenance of forest land

records and maps etc.

Recommendation

The Department should recruit, on priority, adequate manpower at field level for proper management of forests, maintenance of demarcation register and protection of forest to safeguard the forest land from encroachments.

Paragraph 2.3.2

Absence of final notification

The Department has not issued a single final notification on protected forest in

the last 65 years of issuing preliminary notifications, due to failure to complete

demarcation of forests, authentications of maps, issue draft de-notifications of

excluded areas and non-release of land arising from failure to appoint Forest

Settlement Officers (FSO).

Absence of final notifications and lack of effective coordination between the

Forest and Land Revenue departments resulted in encroachment of 25,181

hectare forest land besides failing to restrict illicit sale and purchase of forest

land.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate immediate action to appoint FSOs so that final notifications can be issued without further delay. The Department should also share details of forest land with the Land Revenue Department to prevent the unauthorised sale and purchase of forest land.

Paragraph 2.3.3.1 & 2.3.3.2

Compensatory afforestation

In seven out of 12 test checked forest divisions, 760.41 hectare non-forest land

transferred for compensatory afforestation by the user agencies was not

notified as reserved/protected forest as necessary compliance for rectification

of draft notifications of the proposal was not made by the Department.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate immediate action to accord approval for notification of non-forest land transferred for compensatory afforestation by user agencies.

Paragraph 2.3.3.3


xiv

Final notification of sanctuary

Preliminary notifications for Palamu wildlife (Betla National Park) sanctuary

and Mahuadanr wolf sanctuary were issued in June and July, 1976. However,

final notification of these sanctuaries was not issued by the Department as

arrangements for alternative livelihood of affected right holders was yet to be

done as the Department did not take initiative to arrange the required funds.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate immediate action to provide funds for making arrangements for alternative livelihood to the affected right holders in a time bound manner so that final notifications of the concerned sanctuaries can be issued.

Paragraph 2.3.3.4

Un-reconciled discrepancies

There was discrepancy of 1.037 lakh hectare recorded forest land between the

Department’s reported figures to FSI and the figures reported to Audit from

the figures maintained by the forest divisions.

Recommendation

The Department should take immediate steps to reconcile the discrepancy of 1.037 lakh hectare recorded forest land appearing in FSI Report and divisional records in a time bound manner.

Paragraph 2.3.4

(iv) Audit Paragraphs

Audit observed significant deficiencies in critical areas, which impact the

effectiveness of the State Government. Some important findings arising out of

Compliance Audit (eight paragraphs) are included in the Report. The major

observations relate to absence of compliance with rules and regulations, audit

against propriety, cases of expenditure without adequate justification and

failure of oversight/administrative control. Some of these are mentioned

below:

• Inordinate delays in terminating the contracts by the Executive Engineer,

Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs) Works Division,

Latehar and resuming the balance works, besides failure to cover the water

bound macadam surface with bituminous layer before allowing traffic, led to

cost escalation of ` 3.12 crore, non-recovery of liquidated damages of ` 2.62

crore and wasteful expenditure of ` 93 lakh.

(Paragraph 2.4.1)

• Chief Engineer, National Highways Ranchi provided undue benefit of

` 3.60 crore to a contractor through three ineligible time extensions with

benefits of price escalation despite the contractor’s persistent failure to meet

the time schedule of the work.

(Paragraph 2.4.2)

Overview

xv

• Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi deputed police guards to private

persons at State Government expense in violation of orders, resulting in non-

realisation of ` 14.11 crore.

(Paragraph 2.4.3)

• Continuing with the deployment of Special Auxiliary Police-1, Ranchi by

IG Operations despite non-payment of deployment charges by the user agency

resulted in non-recovery of ` 5.48 crore.

(Paragraph 2.4.4)

• Failure of the Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare /Rural

Development Departments to provide funds, create posts, purchase equipment

and ensure monitoring of the works led to unproductive and unfruitful

expenditure of ` 11.30 crore on five incomplete and non-functional healthcare

facilities.

(Paragraph 2.4.5)

• Approval of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for construction of live model

of Rain Water Harvesting at an encroached site led to unfruitful expenditure of

` 2.02 crore on the DPR in Drinking Water and Sanitation Department.

(Paragraph 2.4.6)

• Commencement of bridge works without ensuring availability of land for

approach roads and non-synchronisation of road and bridge works resulted in

three bridges lying idle for three to four years rendering expenditure of ` 4.66

crore unfruitful besides blocking of ` 76.82 lakh for more than four years in

Road Construction and Rural Development Departments.

(Paragraph 2.4.7)

• Injudicious sanction of a bridge work by Road Construction Department to

connect Kargali and Chalkari villages despite construction of another bridge

by Rural Development Department to connect the same villages already in

progress led to misutilisation of Government money worth ` 15.47 crore in

Road Construction Department.

(Paragraph 2.4.8)

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 About this Report

This report contains the results of Compliance Audits of various departments

under General, Social and Economic Sectors of the Government of Jharkhand

conducted during 2016-17 in compliance with the CAG’s audit mandate.

The report aims to assist the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly in ensuring

executive accountability and improving the process of governance and

improving public service delivery of various departments.

This report contains the following chapters:

1. Chapter I: General information about the auditee departments

2. Chapter II: Compliance Audits on (i) execution of dairy development

schemes in Jharkhand, (ii) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic

Techniques (Prohibition of sex selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), (iii)

management of forest lands in Jharkhand, and eight Audit paragraphs.

1.2 Auditee Profile

Twenty-seven out of total 31 departments in Jharkhand fall under the General,

Social and Economic Sectors (GSES). These departments are headed by

Additional Chief Secretaries / Principal Secretaries / Secretaries, who are

assisted by Commissioner/Directors and subordinate officers under them.

The State Government spent only ` 59,363 crore against the budget of

` 72,966 crore during 2016-17. The trend of budget estimates and actual

expenditure during 2012-17 is depicted in Chart 1 and details of major

spending departments are shown in Table 1.1

38

,49

4

43

,12

2 57

,30

3 7

2,4

74

72

,96

6

30

,40

2

30

,41

3

40

,04

1 5

4,4

37

59

,36

3

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

(` i

n c

rore

)

Chart-1: Budget Estimate and Actual Expenditure

Budget Estimate Total Expenditure

Audit Report on General, Social & Economic Sectors for the year ended 31 March 2017

2

Table 1.1: Statement of expenditure of six major departments

(` in crore)

Department 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

School Education &

Literacy Development

4,824 5,524 6,637

Rural Development 2,782 4,001 3,470

Health, Medical

Education & Family

Welfare

1,609 2,159 2,469

Women, Child

Development & Social

security

865 1,957 2,532

Food, Public

Distribution &

Consumer Affairs

842 779 1,121

Water Resources 704 1,415 1,777

1.3 Audit Coverage

Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand conducted audit of 535 units out of

total 6,760 units under 27 departments during 2016-17. Of these, 384 units (69

per cent) were from the six major departments indicated in Table no 1.1

besides the Compliance Audit on execution of schemes as mentioned in

Chapter II.

1.4 Response of the Government to Audit

Audit affords four stage opportunity to the auditee units/departments to elicit

their views on audit observations viz.,

1. Audit Memos: Issued to the head of the auditee unit during the field audit

to be replied during the audit itself.

2. Inspection Report (IR): Issued within a month of the actual audit to be

replied to by the head of the auditee unit within four weeks.

3. Statement of Facts (SoF): Issued to the heads of the departments under

whom the auditee units function for submission of departmental views

within six weeks for consideration prior to these being included in the

Audit Report.

4. Exit Conference: Final opportunity is given to the head of departments

and State Government to elicit views on the audit observations.

In all these stages, Audit strives to provide full opportunity to auditee

units/heads of departments/State government to provide rebuttals and

clarifications after which, the audit observations are considered for inclusion

in the Inspection Report or Audit Report as the case may be.

Inspection Reports (IRs)

A detailed review of IRs issued up to March 2017 to 1,793 Drawing and

Disbursing Officers (DDOs) pertaining to 31 departments revealed that 24,976

paragraphs amounting to ` 51,179 crore contained in 4,256 IRs were

outstanding for settlement for want of convincing replies as on 31 March

Chapter I: Introduction

3

20181. Of these, the DDOs submitted initial replies against 18,713 paragraphs

contained in 2,996 IRs while, in respect of 6,263 paragraphs contained in

1,260 IRs there was no response from DDOs.

Further, age analysis of the pendency revealed that 58 per cent IRs and 52 per cent paras were outstanding for more than five years of which,

10 per cent IRs and 13 per cent paras pertain to current year (2016-17).

Details are furnished in the Table 1.2

Table 1.2: Outstanding IRs and paragraphs issued up to 31 March 2017

as on 31 March 2018

SL.

No.

Period No. of outstanding IRs

(per cent)

No. of outstanding

paras (per cent)

1 2016-17 454 (10) 3,277 (13)

2 1 year to 3 years 759 (18) 4,605 (19)

3 3 years to 5 years 584 (14) 4,089 (16)

4 More than 5 Years 2,459 (58) 13,005 (52)

Total 4,256 24,976

During 2016-17, 20 (Audit Committee Meetings) meetings of Audit with

departmental officers were held, in which 61 IRs and 673 paras were settled.

Statement of Facts (SoF)

During 2016-17, 75 SoFs were issued by the Accountant General to heads of

12 departments to elicit their views on the audit observations. Of these, only

three replies were received from two departments and no reply was furnished

to 72 SoFs2 till March 2018 as shown below.

No. of SoFs issued

during 2016-17

Replies received till

March 2018

Replies not received

till March 2018

75 03 72

1.5 Compliance Audits

For the present Audit Report 2016-17, draft reports on three Compliance

Audits and eight Audit Paragraphs were forwarded to the concerned

Administrative Secretaries. For the Compliance Audit on execution of dairy

development schemes in Jharkhand, Secretary to Government has given reply

in the Exit Conference while for the other two Compliance Audits

Government reply has been received. However, for the Audit Paragraphs,

reply has been received only for one paragraph while no replies were

1 Including IRs and paragraphs issued up to 31 March 2017 and outstanding as on 31

March 2018. 2 Drinking water and Sanitation-03, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare-02,

Labour, Employment and Skill Development-01, Rural Development-41, Revenue, land

reforms and Registration-02, Road Construction-06, Home (Police), Jail and Disaster

Management-03, Water Resources-05, Forest, Environment and Climate Change-02,

Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative -04, Information and Public relation-

01 and Building Construction-02

Audit Report on General, Social & Economic Sectors for the year ended 31 March 2017

4

furnished by the departments3 on the remaining seven paragraphs despite

repeated reminders.

1.6 Action taken on earlier Audit Reports

According to the rules of procedure for the internal working of the Committee

on Public Accounts, the Administrative departments were to initiate, suo moto action on all Audit paragraphs and Reviews featuring in the Comptroller and

Auditor General’s Audit Reports (ARs), regardless of whether these are taken

up for examination by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) or not. They

were to furnish detailed Action Taken Notes (ATNs), duly vetted by Audit,

indicating the remedial action taken or proposed to be taken by them. The

Audit Reports on GSES for the years 2008-09 to 2015-16 have 191

outstanding paragraphs. Of these, PAC has taken up 55 paragraphs for

discussion and made one recommendation in respect of one sub-paragraph

pertaining to the Audit Report 2008-09 (sub-para 1.3.6.1). However, no ATN

on this sub-paragraph has been received.

Further, the Audit Reports of 2000-01 to 2007-08 which were left to the

Departments for follow-up, had 201 outstanding paragraphs of which 94

paragraphs were taken up for discussion by PAC. Against this, PAC had made

recommendations in respect of seven paragraphs and eight sub-paragraphs of

which, ATNs were received in respect of two paragraphs and six sub-

paragraphs as derailed in Table 1.3 below:

Table 1.3: Status of PAC discussion, Jharkhand, Vidhan Sabha

Status Audit Report

(Civil) for the year

2000-01 to 2007-08

Audit Report

(Civil) for the year

2008-09 to 2015-16

No. of outstanding Audit paras 201 191

Taken up by PAC for discussion 94 55

Not taken up for PAC

discussion

107 136

Recommendation made by PAC 7 paras & 8 sub-

paras

1 sub-para

ATN received 2 paras & 6 sub-

paras

Nil

Action taken by the department 2 paras & 6 sub-

paras

Nil

3 Rural Development (01), Road Construction (02), Home (Police), Jail and Disaster

Management (02), Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare (01), Drinking Water

and Sanitation (01)

AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND COOPERATIVE

DEPARTMENT

2.1 Audit on execution of dairy development schemes in Jharkhand

2.1.1 Introduction

The Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department (Department)

launched (between August 2004 and February 2009) six dairy development

schemes viz., (i) Milch Cattle Induction Scheme (MCIS) (ii) Breed

improvement through artificial insemination (AI) and Heifer Rearing (iii)

Technical Input Programme (TIP) (iv) Gokul Gram Vikas Yojana (v) Green

Fodder Development and (vi) Khatal Rehabilitation Programmes. The main

objectives of these schemes were to attain self-sufficiency in milk production

and to generate gainful sustainable employment for the small and marginal

farmers and agricultural labourers. During 2012-17, the Department incurred

total expenditure of ` 312 crore on these schemes. Of these, Audit selected

two schemes (MCIS and TIP) involving expenditure of ` 242 crore which

accounts for 78 per cent of total expenditure.

The Secretary of the Department, assisted by the Director, Dairy Development

and 24 District Dairy Development Officers (DDDOs) is responsible for

implementation and monitoring of dairy development programmes in the

State.

The audit on execution of MCIS and TIP covering the period 2012-17 was

aimed at assessing the extent to which these programmes attained self-

sufficiency in milk production and enhanced productivity of cattle along with

gainful rural employment.

Audit test checked the records of six1 (selected through Simple Random

Sampling without Replacement2) out of 24 DDDOs and Director, Dairy

Development Directorate in addition to analysis of information/data gathered

from MILKFED3 and BAIF

4. Audit also conducted beneficiary surveys with

76 out of 1,139 beneficiaries in the test-checked districts in the presence of

representatives of the DDDOs. Outcomes of responses of the beneficiaries

were verified with departmental records and suitably incorporated in the

Report.

Entry (April 2017) and exit (January 2018) conferences were held with the

Secretary of the Department to seek views of the Department on objectives,

scope, audit methodology and audit findings. The replies of the Department

have been suitably incorporated in the Report.

1 Deoghar, Jamtara, Koderma, Palamu, Ranchi and Saraikela-Kharsawan.

2 Method of selection of samples in such a way that at any stage of selection each unit has

same chance of being selected. 3 MILKFED- A federation of 12 district milk unions and 1,601 primary milk producers’

societies/ self-help groups registered under Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act 2008 for

milk collection, processing and marketing. 4 BAIF- Bhartiya Agro Industries Foundation is a Non-Government Organization conducting

breed improvement through artificial insemination in District Cattle Dairy Centres.


6

2.1.2 Status of dairy in Jharkhand

Table-1 below indicates target and achievement of milk production in

Jharkhand for 2012-17:

Table 1: Target and achievement of milk production in Jharkhand

Year 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Average

2012-17 Target of milk production set by the

Department (Lakh MT) 17.90 19.70 21.77 24.17 26.95 22.10

Milk produced (achievement) in the

State (Lakh MT) 16.80 17.00 17.34 18.12 18.94 17.64

Short production / achievement

( per cent) in the State (Lakh MT)

1.10

(6.14) 2.70

(13.70) 4.43

(20.34) 6.05

(25.03) 8.01

(29.72) 4.46

(20.18) Per capita availability of milk in the

State (gm/per day)5 146 146 147 152 145 147

National average of per capita

availability of milk (gm/per day) 299 307 322 337 355 355

(Source: 12th

FYP (2012-17) and data/information furnished by the Department)

In the Annual Plans (2012-13 to 2016-17) of the Department, the deficit of

milk production in the State was estimated based on the difference between

the requirement of milk6 as per Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)

and existing production of milk. However, the targets fixed by the Department

were only 61 per cent of the per capita requirement as estimated by ICMR,

and around 52 per cent7 of the national average per capita daily availability of

milk. Actual production was 49 per cent8 of requirement (estimated by ICMR)

and 41.41 per cent9 of the national average as the Department did not prepare

any plan specifying the milestones and timelines to achieve the requirement of

milk to attain self-sufficiency in milk production. Further, these targets for

milk production were not based on any feedback from the field units and were

unilaterally fixed by the Dairy Development Directorate/Department. The

basis for setting these targets was not available in records.

Although milk production of the State increased by 13 per cent during

2012-17, the Department could not achieve milk production against the

average target of 22.10 lakh MT, in any of these years. Further, the milk

production of Jharkhand is less than that of the neighbouring States of Bihar,

Chhattisgarh and Orissa as commented in paragraph 2.1.5.2.

In the exit conference, the Secretary of the Department stated (January 2018)

that milk or milk product is not part of food palate of the major population of

the State and rearing of cattle is not widely practised.

The reply of the Secretary was neither based on actual data on milk

consumption or rearing of cattle nor in line with the Annual Plan of the

Department.

5 As informed by the Department

6 At the rate of 300 gram/day

7 Average target per capita in the State = 147/17.64 * 22.10 =184.17 gm/day. Therefore,

percentage=184/355*100=52 per cent 8 Achievement percentage vis-à-vis requirement=147/300*100=49 per cent

9 Achievement percentage vis-à-vis national average=147/355*100=41.41 per cent

Chapter II: Compliance Audit

7

Audit findings

2.1.3 Human Resource Management

During April 2012 to January 2014, the Directorate had a total sanctioned

strength of 297 posts, against which 127 officials were posted and 170 posts

(57 per cent) were vacant in different cadres. The Department, while

restructuring the cadres10

, sanctioned (February 2014) 282 posts for various

cadres in the Directorate. This created an overall vacancy of 55 per cent (155

posts) at various levels which included critical vacancies of 34 per cent in the

posts of the DDDO at district level and 56 per cent in the posts of Dairy

Technical Officer (DTO) at village level. Both DDDOs and DTOs are crucial

positions in the Directorate who are key to the successful implementation of

the schemes at field level. The sanctioned strength and persons-in-position in

different cadres excepting clerical cadre, computer operator, driver and grade-

D staff as on March 2018 are depicted in Table-2 below:

Table 2: Sanctioned strength and persons in position as on March 2018

Sl.

No. Name of the Post

Sanctioned

Strength

Persons-

in-

Position

Vacancy

(percentage)

1 Director 01 01 00 (0)

2 Joint Director 02 01 01 (50)

3 Deputy Director 05 00 05 (100)

4 Assistant Director/ District Dairy

Development Officer (DDDO)

32 19 13 (34)

5 Dairy Technical Officer 78 32 46 (56)

Statistical Cell

6 Assistant Director,

Dairy Survey and Statistics

01 01 00 (0)

7 Statistical Supervisor 02 00 02 (100)

8 Statistical Calculator 03 00 03 (100)

Source : Information furnished by the Dairy Development Directorate

Further, in two of the six test checked districts (Jamtara and Koderma) the

DDDOs of Deoghar and Hazaribagh districts held the additional charges

respectively.

Statistical Cell

The Statistical Cell in the Directorate is responsible for maintenance and

analysis of the statistics of dairy development in the State. However, no

Statistical Supervisors or Statistical Calculators had been appointed from the

inception of the department. The post of Assistant Director (Dairy Survey and

Statistics) was vacant till February 2017 and though filled in March 2017, the

Assistant Director was engaged in budgetary works only. Thus, the Statistical

Cell was non-functional from the beginning. Resultantly, the Department

neither maintained any statistics of actual number of cattle inducted under

MCIS, purchase of mineral mixtures for the period 2012-16 under TIP,

amount of subsidy parked in the banks etc., nor furnished these information to

Audit for examination as discussed in paragraphs 2.1.6.3 and 2.1.7.

10

Abolished 37 posts and created 22 new posts


8

Thus, shortage of key posts in the Directorate including in the Statistical cell

besides dual charges in the post of DDDOs adversely affected the

implementation of the dairy development schemes.

In the exit conference (January 2018), the Secretary of the Department

accepted the audit observation. The Department further informed (June 2018)

Audit that recruitment against these vacancies is under consideration.

Recommendation

The Department should take appropriate measures to fill up the critical

vacancies to ensure field visits by the DDDOs/DTOs, to ensure

coordination with banks by the DDDOs to ascertain the reasons for

failure of the beneficiaries to repay their loans and to make the Statistical

cell functional.

2.1.4 Poor documentation

Audit noticed that basic scheme documents such as periodic reports, returns,

control registers etc., for implementation of the dairy development schemes

were not maintained at the Directorate as well as Department levels. As such,

actual numbers of cattle inducted, amount of subsidy parked in the banks,

records of purchase of mineral mixtures, nutritional supplements for the period

2012-16 etc., were not produced to Audit (March 2018) despite assurance by

the Secretary of the Department as commented in paragraph 2.1.7.2.

The Department did not establish the Internal Audit Wing of its own.

Although the audit wing of the Finance Department was authorised to conduct

audit of the Department, no audit was conducted by the Finance Department in

any of the test checked units during 2012-17. Absence of Internal Audit led to

non-detection of general control failures at every level including Apex

management level such as fraudulent drawal of ` 7.82 lakh by the Assistant

Director posted in the Dairy Development Directorate (commented in

paragraph 2.1.7.2) etc.

The Department sought information from the field units on case-to-case basis

and not regularly for the purpose of regular monitoring and supervision. Even

periodic reports/ returns were not being obtained by the Directorate from the

field offices for monitoring purpose. Hence, there was no mechanism to

periodically monitor the progress of these schemes, leading to various control

failures and deficiencies as discussed below:

2.1.5 Planning

In order to achieve self-sufficiency in milk production and generate gainful

employment to rural families, the Department in the 12th

five year plan

(FYP-2012-17) and Annual Plans during 2012-17, planned to enhance the

milk production up to 26.95 lakh MT by the end of 2016-17 through (a)

induction of 60,000 milch cattle by providing gainful employment to 25,700

rural families and (b) by improving 38.75 lakh less productive breed through

artificial insemination (AI) to reproduce 9.68 lakh female calves.

Audit observed that the Department prepared these plans unilaterally and fixed

an overall milk production target for the whole State based on inputs from

JMF/BAIF without fixing district wise milk production target.

The Department

prepared plans

unilaterally

without fixing

district wise milk

production target


9


accepted the audit findings.

Further, the following deficiencies were noticed in the plan components of the

schemes as discussed below:

2.1.5.1 Artificial Insemination Centres

In the 12th

FYP, the Department planned to establish 2,440 AI centres for 38.75

lakh AIs to produce 9.68 lakh female calves. Prior to this, State had 1,010

BAIF AI centres plus 430 departmental AI centres i.e., total 1,440 centres.

Accordingly, 1,000 additional centres were to be established during the 12th

FYP. However, the Department did not initiate any action for establishing

additional AI centres for reasons not on record. As a result, the Department

scaled down (during 2012-17) the AIs to only 23.30 lakh which also could not

be achieved as commented in paragraph 2.1.7.1(iv). This resulted in shortfall of

15.45 lakh AIs.

2.1.5.2 Dairy Co-operatives

Prior to June 2013, National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) was

responsible for management of Jharkhand dairy projects including collection

and marketing the milk produced in the State. The State Government

established (June 2013) Jharkhand State Co-operative Milk Producers

Federation (MILKFED) for revitalising the dairy co-operatives in the state and

through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entrusted (March 2014) its

administrative control to NDDB for five years (2014-19). As per the MoU,

NDDB was to prepare a five year dairy development plan for MILKFED

covering all the 24 districts of the state in three phases as per high, medium

and low potential to strengthen the dairy base11

of the State. The plan

stipulates establishment of 1,010 milk pulling points (MPP) for collection of

milk from the beneficiaries. However, the MoU failed to include financial

requirements for execution of the plans and penalties for violations of terms

and conditions.

NDDB prepared (May 2014 and May 2015) dairy development plans12

for 17

(nine high potential districts and eight medium potential districts) out of 24

districts valued at ` 203.76 crore for coverage in two phases (2014-15 and

2015-19) while the remaining seven districts13

was planned to be covered in

the third phase beyond this project period. In the plans submitted by NDDB, a

mid-course correction was to be prepared to revise the target, coverage,

infrastructure and financing pattern framed in the Plan.

Audit observed that the Department did not execute any agreement with

NDDB to formalise the MoU and paid ` 132.22 crore as capital outlay to

MILKFED to execute the plans during 2014-17. MILKFED established 480

out of 1,010 MPPs as of January 2018 and covered 15 out of 17 districts as of

December 2017. The Department did not initiate any mid-course correction

11

Strengthen the infrastructure for dairy, milk procurement, extension, training and capacity

building, marketing of milk and milk products and animal nutrition 12

Plan for 2014-15 (` 23.98 crore) and for 2015-19 (`179.78 crore) 13

Bokaro, East Singhbhum, Gumla, Pakur, Saraikela Kharsawan, Simdega and West

Singhbhum

The Department

did not establish

1,000 AI Centres

which prevented

planning of 15.45

lakh AIs

NDDB plan

2014-19 for Dairy

Development did

not cover seven

out of 24 districts

of the State


10

and as such, re-assessment of targets against achievement could not be done as

envisaged in the plan.

Thus, the plans suffered from lack of grass root level feedback and reduction

in target of AI by 15.45 lakh. Besides, NDDB Plan 2014-19 failed to cover

seven out of 24 districts and the State failed to achieve the objective of

attaining self-sufficiency in milk production.

Had the targets been planned/ fixed based on measurable parameters like the

number of AIs to be carried out, expected number of calves to be born,

targeted number of female calves to be brought into milking progeny etc.,

through adequate monitoring and follow-up then, these could have yielded

desired results.

In the exit conference (January 2018) the Secretary of the Department

accepted the audit observation.

Audit compared the milk production in the 12 FYP with the 11 FYP and also

with the neighbouring States. It was observed that the average growth of milk

production in the State during 12 FYP over 11 FYP was 17.52 per cent (from

15.01 lakh MT in 11 FYP period to 17.64 lakh MT in 12 FYP period) whereas

the National growth during the same plan periods was 25.82 per cent (from

1,172 lakh MT in 11 FYP to 1,474.60 lakh MT in 12 FYP). Thus, the State has

lagged behind the National average in enhancing the productivity of the milk

through implementation of the different dairy development schemes.

Further, the cumulative growth of milk production in Jharkhand (12.80 per cent) during 12 FYP was less when compared with the growth of milk

production of the neighbouring States of Orissa (16.18 per cent), Chhattisgarh

(18.04 per cent) and Bihar (27.26 per cent) as shown in the chart below:

Growth in milk production in neighbouring States during 2012-17

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, GoI

The audit findings in this report highlight and flag the key area of concerns which need to be addressed if the objectives of milk productivity and providing sustainable employment are to be achieved.

Recommendation

The Department needs to develop appropriate strategies and measurable

parameters at every level of scheme implementation indicating clear

milestones and timelines to attain self-sufficiency in milk production.

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Bihar Chattisgarh Orissa Jharkhand

68

.45

11

.64

17

.24

16

.79

71

.97

12

.09

18

.61

17

.00

77

.75

12

.32

19

.03

17

.34

82

.88

12

.77

19

.30

18

.12

87

.11

13

.74

20

.03

18

.94

Lak

h M

T

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Cumulative

Growth - 12.80

Cumulative

Growth - 16.18 Cumulative

Growth - 18.04

Cumulative

Growth - 27.26


11

2.1.6 Financial Management

The deficiencies noticed in financial management are indicated below:

2.1.6.1 Allotment and Expenditure

Against the total allotment of ` 662.05 crore14

during 2012-17 for dairy

development, the Department spent ` 597.3915

crore and ` 64.6616

crore (9.76

per cent) was surrendered. Year-wise status of allotments, expenditure and

savings/surrender for dairy development is indicated below in Table-3:

Table 3: Yearwise Budget Allotment, Expenditure and Savings/Surrender (`̀̀̀ in crore)

Year Central Scheme Schemes under State Plan

Allotment Expenditure Savings/

Surrender

Allotment Expenditure Surrender

2012-13 28.03 27.64 0.39 32.32 28.33 3.99

2013-14 11.16 9.10 2.06 57.62 52.76 4.86

2014-15 20.00 19.48 0.52 64.69 58.03 6.66

2015-16 12.89 12.31 0.58 173.91 167.28 6.63

2016-17 24.61 4.67 19.94 236.82 217.79 19.03

Total 96.69 73.20 23.49 565.36 524.19 41.17

(Source: Data furnished by the Dairy Directorate Jharkhand, Ranchi)

There was substantial increase in the allocation and expenditure during 2015-

16 and 2016-17 when compared to 2012-15 mostly on account of introduction

of Milch cattle induction (BPL) scheme by the Department. However, the

Department could not fully utilise the funds in 2016-17 due to failure to induct

the targeted numbers of cattle under the scheme as commented in paragraph

2.1.7.1(iv).


accepted the audit observation.

2.1.6.2 Irregular payment to MILKFED on account of operational

deficit

In terms of clause 2(b) of MoU executed between the GoJ and NDDB, GoJ

was to meet the operational deficit of MILKFED and its constituent

units/unions, if any, to enable smooth operations of the entire project of Dairy

Development in Jharkhand.

Audit observed from records of Directorate that NDDB prepared (May 2014

and May 2015) Jharkhand Dairy Development Plans17

for 2014-19 with

financial outlay of ` 203.76 crore. Of this, the total financial outlay during

2014-17 was ` 132.22 crore. This amount was released to MILKFED by the

Directorate which included ` 6.80 crore18

earmarked towards operational

deficit. However, scrutiny of the annual accounts of MILKFED for the period

2014-17 revealed that there was no loss to the organisation. Moreover,

MILKFED did not claim any reimbursement against operational deficit from

the Directorate. Thus, payment of ` 6.80 crore towards operational deficit

despite there being no deficit was against the financial interest of Government

and an undue favour to MILKFED.

14

Central Scheme (CS): ` 96.69 crore and State Plan (SP): ` 565.36 crore 15

CS: ` 73.20 crore and SP: ` 524.19 crore 16

CS: ` 23.49 crore and SP: ` 41.17 crore 17

Plan for 2014-15 (` 23.98 crore) and plan for 2015-19 (` 179.78 crore) 18 ` 0.89 crore + ` 2.53 crore + ` 3.38 crore for 2014-17.

Despite no operational

deficit, payment of

`̀̀̀ 6.80 crore on this

account was made to

MILKFED


12

In reply, the Director, Dairy Development, Jharkhand stated (August 2017)

that for execution of ambitious/flagship scheme of two Milch Cattle Induction,

this amount was paid to MILKFED in special circumstances to create a corpus

fund to provide cushion for the beneficiary share immediately as envisaged in

the scheme guidelines which would be subsequently recovered from the

beneficiaries in easy instalments.

The reply seems to be an afterthought as it contravenes the MoU which

mandates that reimbursement towards operational deficit was payable to

MILKFED only to meet the deficit, if any, and not for creation of corpus fund.

Further, the scheme guidelines also nowhere stipulate that Government would

provide financial aid for creation of corpus.

2.1.6.3 Parking of government fund of ` 45.07 crore

During 2012-17, the Department allotted ` 181.24 crore as subsidy to induct

44,925 milch cattle in the State through Milch Cattle Induction schemes

(RKVY and BPL scheme19

). Of this, ` 178.98 crore was released to the banks

as shown in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Scheme wise target of cattle, allotment and expenditure

(`̀̀̀ in crore)

Scheme

Target

of cattle

(nos)

Allotment Release to

banks

For

induction of

cattle (nos)

Commented

in paragraph

RKVY 18,777 36.92 36.17 15,923 2.1.7.1(i)

BPL scheme 26,148 144.32 142.81 25,818 2.1.7.1(ii)

Total 44,925 181.24 178.98 41,741

(Source: Data furnished by the Dairy Directorate Jharkhand, Ranchi)

The Department booked the amount as expenditure without taking any reports

from the DDDOs of the districts on the numbers of cattle inducted under the

scheme. However, based on the subsidy drawn, 41,741 cattle were reported as

inducted. Thus, the manner in which the Department extended cattle induction

was flawed.

In the six test checked districts, subsidy of ` 82.85 crore was drawn from the

treasury by concerned DDDOs and released to the banks during 2012-17 to

induct 18,452 cattle. Of this, ` 37.78 crore (45.60 per cent) was utilised for

purchase of cattle and subsidy of ` 45.07 crore (54.40 per cent) was lying

unutilised in the banks as on March 2017 as the beneficiaries did not purchase

their cattle. No steps were taken to get back and charge interest from banks on

the subsidy for the period it remained unutilised. The DDDOs merely

transferred funds from the Department to the banks and declared the schemes

as implemented. As these were findings in the sampled districts, the unutilised

amounts parked in banks in other districts of the State need to be ascertained

by the Department for taking refund and charging interest.

In the exit conference (January 2018) the Secretary of the Department assured

that necessary efforts would be initiated to obtain the district wise / year wise /

scheme wise details of cattle actually purchased with subsidy released to the

banks and get the unutilised subsidy refunded. Details of these are still awaited

in Audit (June 2018).

19

Two milch cattle induction scheme launched in 2016-17 by State Government to provide

gainful employment to rural BPL women

In test checked

districts, subsidy of

`̀̀̀ 45.07 crore was

parked in banks as

the beneficiaries

did not purchase

cattle


13

Recommendation

The Department should ascertain the amount of subsidy parked in banks

in the entire State and charge interest from banks on the unutilised

subsidy which was not remitted to beneficiaries within the stipulated

period. The Department should also not release further subsidy till the

unutilised subsidy at the disposal of banks is adjusted.

2.1.7 Implementation of schemes

2.1.7.1 Milch Cattle Induction scheme (MCIS)

The Department planned to induct 60,000 milch cattle to generate sustainable

income for small and marginal farmers and Milk Producers Co-operative

Societies in rural areas during 2012-17. To achieve this goal, the Department

implemented milch cattle induction schemes under Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojna (RKVY). In January 2016, the scheme relating to two milch cattle per

beneficiary was limited only to the BPL (female) category, while the other

schemes under RKVY continued. In addition, other measures to enhance

productivity through AI and rearing of female claves were also taken by the

Department during the same period.

2.1.7.1(i) MCIS under RKVY

The MCIS under RKVY was aimed to provide subsidy for induction of high

yielding milch cattle to boost milk production of the State and to provide

gainful employment to rural families.

Under this scheme, cattle were to be inducted through five types of dairy units

on subsidy ranging between 20 and 50 per cent as detailed in Table 5.

Table 5: Project costs and subsidy for each dairy units

Types of dairy unit Funding pattern Project cost (`̀̀̀) Subsidy (`̀̀̀ )

Two-cattle Dairy

(1+1)

50 per cent- Subsidy

50 per cent- Loan from Bank 95,050 47,525

Mini Dairy

(Five [3+2] cattle)


50 per cent- Loan from Bank 2,47,625 1,23,813

Midi Dairy

(Ten [5+5] cattle)



Commercial Dairy

(20 [10+10] cattle)



Modern Dairy

(50 [25+25] cattle)


10 per cent- Beneficiary share

70 per cent- Loan from Bank

27,01,250 5,40,250

(Source: Information furnished by the Department)

The remaining cost of the project (dairy units) was to be financed through

banks as loan to the beneficiaries. The concerned DDDO sends a sanctioned

list of beneficiaries to the banks for further processing of loans. The subsidy is

released to the banks only upon the receipt of claims.

The cattle were to be inducted in two phases with a gap of six months to

ensure continuous availability of milk to beneficiaries. The actual purchase of

cattle against the sanctioned funds was to be ensured within the same financial

year.


14

Scrutiny of records of the Directorate revealed that the scheme was

implemented in all the districts of the State during 2012-13, 2014-15 and

2015-16 while it was implemented only in two districts (Dhanbad and Khunti)

during 2013-14 as central share was not released by GoI for reasons not on

record. In 2016-17, the scheme was not implemented as the subsidy amount

was reduced to 25 per cent for General category beneficiaries (from the earlier

40-5020

per cent) and 33.33 per cent for SC/ST categories beneficiaries (from

the earlier 40-50 per cent) under a new funding pattern for Mini and Midi

dairy schemes.

Against the target to induct 18,777 cattle under RKVY (as commented in

paragraph 2.1.6.3, Table 4), the Department allotted (2012-16) ` 26.19 crore

as subsidy to induct 10,083 cattle in the first phase through 5,208 dairy units21

.

Of this, ` 25.87 crore was released to banks to induct 9,942 cattle for

providing gainful employment to at least 5,136 beneficiaries (dairy units).

However, in the second phase, against the requirement22

of 8,561 cattle to be

inducted as per requirement of the different dairy units, the Department

released ` 10.30 crore to the banks to induct 5,981 cattle. Thus, subsidies for

15,923 cattle (1st phase: 9,942 cattle and 2

nd phase: 5,981 cattle) were provided

to the banks in both the phases against the target of 18,777 cattle. Resultantly,

induction of 2,854 cattle against the targets was not ensured and this deprived

1,553 beneficiaries (1st phase: 72 and 2

nd phase: 1,481) of the scheme benefits.

The main reason for short release of subsidy in the second phase was on

account of absence of claims by the concerned banks, as noticed from the files

of the concerned DDDOs, against these 1,481 beneficiaries who failed to pay

their instalments against loan received in the first phase. Reason for short

release in the first phase was not on record.

Audit observed that no records of defaulters were maintained in the districts

by the DDDOs as they do not coordinate with the banks to get these details

and visit the beneficiaries for possible way-out as envisaged in the scheme

guidelines.

Hence, milch cattle induction scheme under RKVY could not provide

employment to at least 30 per cent (1,553 out of 5,208) of the intended

beneficiaries and 15 per cent (2,854 out of 18,777) of the targeted cattle could

not be inducted in the State.

In this connection it is also to be mentioned that the achievement claimed by

the Department was based on the amount of subsidy released to the banks and

not on the actual numbers of cattle inducted under the scheme as feedback on

cattle inducted at district levels were not taken from the concerned DDDOs.

20

50 per cent for Mini dairy and 40 per cent Midi dairy. 21

Two-cow: 3,536 units (7,072 cattle); Mini Dairy: 1,389 units (6,945 cattle); Midi Dairy:

150 units (1,500 cattle); Commercial Dairy: 113 units (2,260); and Modern Dairy: 20 units

(1,000 cattle) i.e., Total 5208 dairy units and 18,777 cattle 22

Two-cow: 3,479 units (6,958 cattle); Mini Dairy: 1,381 units (6,905 cattle); Midi Dairy:

148 units (1,480 cattle); Commercial Dairy: 108 units (2,160); and Modern Dairy: 20 units

(1,000 cattle) i.e., Total 5,136 dairy units and 18,503 cattle (1st phase: 9,942; 2

nd phase:

8,561)


15

2.1.7.1(ii) Milch Cattle Induction Scheme for BPL women

The Government of Jharkhand introduced (January 2016) Milch Cattle

Induction scheme (BPL Scheme) to provide gainful employment to rural BPL

women by providing them with two milch cattle. The target was to cover

50,000 BPL women in six years i.e., by 2020-21. However, the Department

did not link this scheme with the target of milk production in the State. With

the commencement of this scheme, the two-cattle induction scheme under

RKVY was discontinued.

Under the BPL scheme, improved cross/ indigenous breed of cows were to be

inducted on 90 per cent subsidy. The remaining 10 per cent beneficiary share

was to be financed through MILKFED as interest free loan subject to the

condition that milk is sold by the beneficiaries to MILKFED for adjustment of

the loan in 24 instalments. As per executive orders issued (January 2016) by

the Secretary of the Department for implementation of the BPL scheme, 90

per cent of the project cost23

(1st phase-` 59,580 and 2

nd phase- ` 45,180) was

to be credited directly into the bank accounts of the beneficiaries who were

selected by District Level Committees (DLC) headed by the Deputy

Commissioners (DCs) of the concerned districts. The banks were to freeze the

subsidy amount in the bank accounts of the beneficiaries till issue of

instruction of concerned DDDOs to release the amount.

The Department allotted ` 144.3224

crore to the DDDOs to induct 26,148 (1st

phase: 18,176 and 2nd

phase: 7,972) cattle under this scheme during 2015-17

(as shown in Table 4 under paragraph 2.1.6.3). Of this, ` 142.81 crore was

drawn from treasuries by the concerned DDDOs and released to the banks for

crediting into the bank accounts of the beneficiaries to induct 25,818 cattle.

Audit noticed from minutes of the monthly meetings (October 2017) of the

Directorate that only 12,224 cattle (1st phase: 10,494 and 2

nd phase: 1,730)

were actually inducted through this scheme mainly due to failure of the

DDDOs to facilitate the beneficiaries by organising pashu-mela in their

premises for purchase of cattle and only ` 70.34 crore25

was adjusted against

the subsidy. Further, the coverage of this scheme was limited to 1,516 villages

situated on the milk route of MILKFED in 15 districts in contrary to the

MCIS under RKVY where there were no such requirements.

Thus, the Milch Cattle Induction (BPL) scheme could not cover nine out of 24

districts, depriving BPL females from getting gainful employment under this

scheme. In addition, the Department failed to induct 53 per cent (13,924 out

26,148) of targeted cattle during 2015-17 and provide sustainable employment

to 89.49 per cent (16,44626

out of 18,17627

beneficiaries who did not get cattle

in the 2nd

phase) beneficiaries.

23

` 1,16,350 per dairy unit 24

18,176 (1st phase) x ` 59,580 = ` 108.30 crore; 7,972 (2

nd phase) x ` 45,180 =

` 36.02 crore ; Total: ` 108.30 + ` 36.02 = ` 144.32 crore 25

10,494 x ` 59,580 for 1st phase and 1,730 x ` 45,180 for 2

nd phase

26 18,176 (1

st phase) minus 1,730 (2

nd phase)

27 10,000 plus 8,176 released for first phase during 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively.


16

2.1.7.1(iii) Performance of MCIS in test checked districts

In the guidelines of the MCIS under RKVY and BPL schemes, the

Department did not define any key performance indicators (KPI) to evaluate

the performance of the scheme. Further, third party evaluation, though

mandated in the operational guidelines of RKVY, was not taken up by the

State during 2012-17. In the absence of KPIs and evaluation by the State

Government, Audit could not assess the actual impact of the schemes on the

livelihood of the beneficiaries or on the self-sufficiency of the State in milk

production. However, the following observations are made on the basis of

scheme statistics:

Physical Evaluation

Target and achievement of dairy units under RKVY and BPL schemes in test-

checked districts during 2012-17 are detailed in Table 6:

Table 6: Target and achievement in test checked districts

Districts

Units

Total Two-cows

Mini Dairy

(Five Cows)

Midi Dairy

(Ten Cows)

Commercial Dairy

(20 Cows)

Modern Dairy

(50 cows)

T A T A T A T A T A T A

Ranchi 4,223 341 76 34 10 05 15 05 05 02 4,329 387

Deoghar 4,404 430 164 106 32 19 27 24 05 04 4,632 583

Palamau 475 20 49 10 03 01 03 01 00 00 530 32

Koderma 872 28 42 12 10 02 00 00 00 00 924 42

Jamtara 585 60 25 18 04 00 01 01 00 00 615 79

Saraikela-

Kharsawan 28 11 14 04 00 00 01 01 00 00 43 16

Total 10,587 890 370 184 59 27 47 32 10 6 11,073 1,139

(Source: DDDOs of test checked districts) (T: Target ; A: Achievement)

As seen from the above table, performance of the two-milch cattle induction

schemes was very poor (8.40 per cent) when compared to five or more cattle

induction schemes (where performance ranged between 45.76 per cent and

68.08 per cent). This is because the two-milch cattle dairies do not provide

sustainable source of income to the beneficiary round the year, as cattle cease

to give milk at least for two months in a pregnancy cycle, and during this

period the beneficiary has to feed the cattle (along with calves) without getting

any milk from them. Moreover, the beneficiaries get the subsidy for purchase

of the second cattle only in the next financial year irrespective of the

prescribed period of six months. This breaks the chain of continuous flow of

milk for the beneficiary. In contrary, in other dairy schemes where the

numbers of cattle are more than one, the beneficiary gets milk all through the

year by spacing the pregnancy cycle of different cattle to maintain the

availability of milk.

Financial Evaluation

In the test checked districts, ` 12.49 crore was released under RKVY to induct

5,806 cattle during 2012-17 and in five out of six test checked districts28

` 70.36 crore was released under BPL scheme during 2015-17 to induct

12,646 cattle. Thus, a total ` 82.85 crore was released for 18,452 cattle. Of

this, only ` 37.78 crore (45.60 per cent) was spent and adjusted from subsidy

for induction of 9,482 cattle while ` 45.07 crore was parked in banks for

28

Deoghar, Jamtara, Koderma, Palamau and Ranchi


17

reasons given in paragraph 2.1.6.3. Parking of funds in banks outside the

Government account is fraught with the risk of misappropriation of

Government money.


accepted the audit observation and assured that necessary corrective steps

would be taken.

2.1.7.1(iv) Productivity enhancement

The Department fixed a target of performing 23.30 lakh AIs to improve the

breed29

by Confirmed Pregnancy (CP) of 11.10 lakh cattle during 2012-17 but

did not fix the target of female calves though it was planned to reproduce 9.68

lakh female calves by performing 38.75 lakh AIs. Against this, BAIF

performed 21.55 lakh AIs during 2012-17 and achieved 11.58 lakh CP

resulting in 8.19 lakh calving, of which 3.8330

lakh (33 per cent of CP) were

female calves. In comparison, in 11 FYP, 0.91 lakh (31 per cent of CP)

female calves were born out of 2.94 lakh CP (5.69 lakh AIs). Thus, production

of female calves during the 12 FYP did not significantly improve vis-à-vis the

11th

Plan period. However, BAIF began the use of sorted semen (with Y

chromosome) for AIs during 2016-17 to enhance the production of female

calves.

Further, 1.70 lakh31

out of 3.83 lakh female calves were to be converted into

milking progeny in the State by March 2017 but only 46,322 (27.27 per cent) could be done as the Department released only ` 1.08 crore for this purpose

during the entire 12 FYP period against the requirement32

of ` 10.71 crore for

reasons not on record. Thus, productivity enhancement could not be achieved

through AI for failure to adhere to the target and rear the female calves with

adequate food supplements.

In the exit conference, Secretary of the Department accepted the audit

observation and inter alia stated (January 2018) that 3,000 more AI centres are

planned to be established this year and by next year (2018-19), there would be

a Centre for each panchayat. The Secretary further stated that the figures of

targets and achievement would be examined.

Recommendation

Considering the objective to attain self-sufficiency in milk production and

provide gainful employment, the Department should provide adequate

funds for promoting mini, midi, commercial and modern dairies besides

streamlining the two-milch cattle dairies by providing the second cattle

within six months. Further, the Department should fix target for

production of female calves and provide adequate funds to rear the

female calves for maximum conversion into milking progeny.

29

Less productive breed of the State through Artificial Insemination with semen of cross-

breed cattle 30

2012-13: 33,317; 2013-14: 57,156; 2014-15: 79,386; 2015-16: 98,152 and 2016-17: 1,14,512 31

Considering only 1,69,859 (1.70 lakh) heifers born between 2012-13 and 2014-15 as only

these could be converted into milking progeny 32

For 3,82,523 female calves x 20 kg calf starter at the rate of ` 14 per kg

Productivity

enhancement could

not be achieved

through AI for

failure to adhere to

the target and rear

the female calves

with adequate food

supplements


18

2.1.7.2 Technical Input Programme (TIP)

The Department implemented TIP (August 2004) to maintain overall health of

the cattle and for enhancement of milk productivity.

Under TIP, nutritional supplements (inputs) like mineral mixture, medicines

and other feed supplements were to be distributed to the farmers either free of

cost or at subsidised rate. These inputs were to be procured at the Directorate

level and to be distributed through BAIF.

Audit observed that the Department provided ` 63 crore for implementation of

the programme during 2012-17. Of these, the Director, Dairy Development

furnished records for procurement of mineral mixture and other inputs made in

2016-17. But no documents of procurement and distribution of technical

inputs made during 2012-16 valued at ` 43 crore33

were produced to Audit

despite several requisitions/reminders34

and assurance given (January 2018) by

the Secretary of the Department in the exit conference that these records were

available for scrutiny by Audit.

Such non-production of records of these procurements and distributions from

Audit is a red flag to presumptive fraud and misappropriation. The matter,

therefore, merits examination from a vigilance angle. The red flags were

substantiated when Audit observed that the Assistant Director (the Drawing

and Disbursing Officer) of the Directorate withdrew (March 2017) ` 7.82 lakh

twice35

from the Doranda Treasury on the strength of same invoice36

by

making two separate entries in the stock register and fraudulently made an

excess payment of ` 7.82 lakh to a firm for supply of mineral mixture with

amino acid and vitamins (MM-AaV) bypassing all control measures in the

Department.


accepted the audit observation and stated that departmental proceedings would

be initiated against the responsible officials and action would be taken against

the agency. Further progress in this regard would be awaited in Audit.

Recommendation

Failure of the Department to furnish records to Audit and the double

withdrawal by the Assistant Director, merits vigilance investigation.

Other irregularities observed are as follow:

2.1.7.2(i) Selection of ineligible bidder

The Directorate invited (October 2016) tender for procurement of five lakh kg

MM-AaV. The Director, Dairy sent (December 2016) the samples received

from the four technically qualified bidders to Birsa Agricultural University

(BAU), Ranchi to determine the lowest cost per dose. As per the dose

determination report furnished (7 December 2016) by the BAU, the cost per

33

2012-13- ` 6 Crore, 2013-14- ` 12.40 crore, 2014-15- ` 12.60 crore and 2015-16-` 12

crore 34

Seven times between May 2017 and March 2018 35

Bill No. 186/2016-17 (Sub-Voucher (SV) no.981) (guard file No. 10) and second vide bill

no.204/2016-17 (SV No. 1149 (Guard file no.12) 36

Invoice No. MM/96 dated 18 January 2017 for supply of 2,460 packets (5 kg each) of

MM-AaV


19

dose of the firm (M/s KPR Agrochem Ltd., Andhra Pradesh) was adjudged the

lowest. However, the report was declared (13 December 2016) null and void

by the Dean, BAU on the ground that the official who prepared the report was

a temporary teacher in BAU and not competent to issue such report. The

report was received in the Department on 14 December 2016 and initialled by

the Director on 20 December 2016. In the meanwhile, the tender committee

headed by the Director, Dairy finalised (14 December 2016) the tender in

favour of the firm based on the invalid dose determination report and issued

(16 December 2016) work order for supply 4,00,002 packets of one-kg and

58,490 packets of five-kg Abhaya Chelated MM-AaV valued at ` 4.65 crore.

Incidentally as noticed from the tender documents, the firm was not eligible to

qualify for the bid as it did not possess experience of 10 years of production of

mineral mixture and publication of research papers as required under NIT.

Despite this, the Chairman of the tender committee who himself was the

Director, Dairy and was aware of the facts supressed these flaws and selected

the firm as the successful bidder. Even when the Director acknowledged the

letter of Dean, BAU after three days (20 December 2016), he did not take any

action to cancel the work order and go for fresh evaluation. Thus, an ineligible

firm was given supply order in violation of tender eligibility, and the matter

merits investigation from a vigilance angle.

2.1.7.2(ii) Non-accountal of consignment

As per invoices, the agency supplied 6,35,654 kg MM-AaV (3,43,049 one-Kg

packets and 58,521 five-Kg packets) valued at ` 4.25 crore37

in January 2017

at seven locations38

which were different from the approved stock point of

Khunti. The Department did not entrust any of its officials to receive the

consignments and ordered (January 2017) BAIF to get the items unloaded

without imposing any responsibility to maintain stock accounts. The supplied

items were not recorded in any stock registers at the stock points but entries

were made in the stock register of the Directorate on the basis of invoices

submitted by the supplier/agencies without ascertaining their physical receipts

at stock points. Hence, their actual receipts could not be shown to Audit by

any Government authority either at Department level or at District level.

However, from the records of BAIF, it was found that 6,20,002 kg MM-AaV

had been lifted by BAIF between April 2017 and February 2018 from all

seven stock points. Of this, BAIF distributed 4,31,115 kg MM-AaV till March

2018 while balance 1,88,887 kg MM-AaV were lying with BAIF. Thus, the

whereabouts of 15,652 kg MM-AaV could not be traced.

2.1.7.2(iii) Irregular payment of `̀̀̀ 4.25 crore

As per general terms and conditions of the contract, payments were to be made

to the firm on the basis of analytical report of sample from Government

approved quality control laboratory. The samples were randomly selected

from the same lot and were sent (March 2017) to two laboratories empanelled

with the Department viz., M/s Interstellar Testing Centre Pvt. Ltd (ITC),

Panchkula (Haryana Government approved laboratory) and Centre for

37

3,43,049 kg x ` 69.75= ` 2.39 crore plus 58,521kg x ` 318=` 1.86 crore 38

(i) Dhanbad, (ii) Garhwa, (iii) Giridih (iv) Godda (v) Hazaribagh (vi) Khunti and (vii)

Palamu

The Department

declared M/s KPR

Agrochem Ltd. as

successful bidder

despite the firm not

meeting the tender

requirements


20

Analysis and Learning in Livestock and Food (CALF), a laboratory of NDDB,

Government of India.

Audit observed that the Department made (31 March 2017) payments of

` 4.25 crore to the firm on the basis of analytical report furnished (23 March

2017) by ITC confirming the composition of MM-AaV ditto and by recording

in the files of the Directorate that CALF had not submitted any report.

However, Audit cross examined the fact from MILKFED (NDDB) and

obtained the report of CALF prepared on 7 March 2017 which was

communicated (15 March 2017) to the Secretary of the Department prior to

submission of report by ITC. The report of CALF revealed that sample did not

meet the specifications mentioned by the firm and was unfit for consumption.

The report was traceless in the records of Directorate and no action was

initiated (March 2018) either to prevent its consumption or to re-examine the

samples for quality worthiness. Meanwhile, 4.31 lakh kg of substandard MM-

AaV were distributed by BAIF to the beneficiaries.

Hence, payments worth ` 4.25 crore against substandard supply by

suppression of report of CALF merit investigation from a vigilance angle as

the possibility of collusion of departmental officials could not be ruled out.


accepted the facts and assured to initiate departmental proceedings against the

erring officials, blacklist the agency and seize its security deposit.

Recommendation

The entire procedure of selection of an ineligible firm, suppression of

quality test report and payment of ` ` ` ` 4.25 crore merits vigilance

investigation.

2.1.8 Monitoring

The Department has not defined key performance indicators (KPI) for

evaluation of the schemes. Resultantly, the Department could not evaluate the

scheme outcomes during 2012-17. Audit observed deficiencies in monitoring

of the schemes, which are discussed below:

• The DDDO and DAHO were to conduct 100 per cent supervision and

follow up of the distributed cattle in each month and to prepare a report for

submission to the District Level Committee for MCIS. Further, a Scheme

Inspection Register was also to be maintained by the DDDOs to record

remarks of the Inspecting officers.

Audit observed in the test-checked districts that none of these activities were

conducted during 2012-17 by any of the DDDOs/DAHOs due to shortage in

manpower (commented in paragraph 2.1.3) resulting in lack of monitoring

ibid as discussed in paragraph 2.1.7.1.

• The Directorate did not establish any Management Information System

(MIS) to generate and disseminate reliable and consolidated information of its

activities, which would have strengthened the monitoring mechanism.

• The Department never carried out internal audit in any of the test checked

units during 2012-17 as discussed in paragraph 2.1.4.

Payments of `̀̀̀ 4.25

crore was made to

the firm by

suppression of

report that the

supply made was

substandard


21


accepted the audit observations and assured corrective action.

Recommendation

The Department should prescribe and ensure adherence to monitoring

and oversight procedures at all levels.

2.1.9 Conclusion

The dairy development schemes suffered from significant deficiencies in

planning as well management. Against the average target of 22.10 lakh MT, the

department could not achieve milk production in any of these years, although

milk production increased by 13 per cent in the State during 2012-17.

The State could not achieve its objectives in milk production, as the per capita

average availability of milk in the State was 147 gm/day during 2012-17 against

the national availability of 355 gm/day.

The Department paid ` 6.80 crore to MILKFED to meet the operational deficit,

despite the Annual Accounts of MILKFED indicating no such deficits.

The Department did not manage its resources professionally as ` 178.98 crore

drawn from treasuries and released to the banks during 2012-17 by the DDDOs

were shown as spent on MCIS without assessing the actual numbers of cattle

inducted. Of this, ` 45.07 crore was parked in banks in the six test checked

districts due to failure to purchase cattle, while in the remaining 18 districts,

the Department did not have any information as the Statistical Cell of the

Department is non-functional in the absence of posting against vacancies.

The Milch Cattle Induction scheme under RKVY could not provide

employment to at least 30 per cent (1,553 out of 5,208) of the intended

beneficiaries while the Milch Cattle Induction (BPL) scheme did not cover

nine out of 24 districts of the State and failed to induct 53 per cent (13,924 out

26,148) of targeted cattle during 2015-17.

Under Technical Input Programme, the Department purchased substandard

mineral mixture from an ineligible firm worth ` 4.25 crore by suppression of

quality test report. The Assistant Director fraudulently drew ` 7.82 lakh from

Doranda Treasury on the strength of same invoice.

Monitoring of the schemes was not effective as the DDDOs/DAHOs did not

undertake field visits due to shortage in manpower while Management

Information System (MIS) was not established. Further, the Department did

not define any key performance indicators (KPI) for evaluation of the schemes

while, third party monitoring and evaluation was not undertaken by the State in

any of the years during 2012-17, though mandated in the operational guidelines

of RKVY.


22

HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE

DEPARTMENT

2.2 Audit on implementation of the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-

natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994

2.2.1 Introduction

The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex

Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) and Rules thereunder, aimed to overcome

the growing and grave problem of sex-selection resulting from misuse of pre-

natal diagnostic techniques. The Act prohibits determination and disclosure of

the sex of foetus. It also prohibits any advertisements relating to pre-natal

determination of sex and prescribes punishment for its contravention. Persons

contravening the provisions of the Act are punishable with imprisonment up to

three years and fine up to ` 10,000.

The institutional arrangements for implementation of the Act at various levels

in the State are shown below:

Audit examined the extent of implementation of the Act/Rules covering the

period 2014-17 based on three essential parameters- sufficiency of human

resources, adequacy and utilisation of funds and effectiveness of monitoring

through test check of records of Directorate (PCPNDT Cell), National Health

Mission (NHM) and six39

out of 24 civil surgeon cum district appropriate

authority (CS cum DAA) offices in the districts. Besides, joint physical

39

Dhanbad, East Singhbhum, Gumla, Koderma, Ranchi and Sahibganj selected by

Probability Proportionate Size (PPS) with replacement method.

Regulatory Bodies

Policy Making Body

Central Supervisory Board (CSB)

State Supervisory Board (SSB)

Implementing Body

State Appropriate

Authority (SAA)

District Appropriate

Authority (DAA)

Advisory Committee

State Advisory Committee

(SAC)

District Advisory

Committee (DAC)

Inspection & Monitoring Committee

State Inspection & Monitoring

Committee (SIMC)

District Inspection & Monitoring Committee

(DIMC)


23

inspection of 72 (16 per cent) out of 43940

ultrasonography clinics (USG)

which includes six Government hospitals (GH), eight private hospitals (PH)

and 58 private USG/nursing homes (NH) was carried out in these test-checked

districts with the representatives of concerned CS cum DAA offices.

Entry (April 2017) and exit conferences (September 2017) were held with

Director cum Nodal Officer, Health Services, PCPNDT to seek views of the

Department on objectives, scope, audit methodology and audit findings.

Further, the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) of the Department replied to the

Audit observations in January 2018. The replies of the Department have been

suitably incorporated in the Report.

Audit findings

2.2.2 Human resource management

2.2.2.1 Vacancies in key positions

For implementation of the Act, the State Government created the posts of

Nodal Officer PCPNDT in April 2005 and State co-ordinator (PCPNDT),

State co-ordinator Monitoring and Evaluation and PCPNDT lawyer in April

2011. Except the post of Nodal Officer which is managed by Director, Health

Services, the other three posts were vacant (May 2018) since their creation.

It was observed that the Department took no action to fill up the posts and

issued (October 2017) advertisement for filling these posts (except PCPNDT

lawyer) and held examination only in April 2018; appointments were yet to be

made (May 2018). The vacancies in these key positions adversely affected

monitoring of implementation of the Act as discussed in paragraph 2.2.4.

2.2.2.2 Sonography by unqualified doctors

As per PCPNDT Rule 3(3)(1)(b), a sonologist or an imaging specialist or

registered medical practitioner having post graduate degree or diploma or six

months training duly imparted in the manner prescribed in the PCPNDT (Six

Months Training Rules) Amendment Rules 2014 is eligible to perform

ultrasound in registered centres. Further, the Amendment Rule 2014 stipulates

that all the existing registered medical practitioners who are employed in a

genetic clinic or USG or imaging centre on the basis of one year experience or

six months training are exempted from undertaking the said training provided

they are able to qualify the Competency Based Evaluation (CBE). In case of

failure to clear the CBE, they shall be required to undertake the complete six

months training as provided under these rules for the purpose of renewal of

registration of the centre. Moreover, section41

3(2) of PCPNDT Act 1994

stipulates that no genetic counseling centre/laboratory/clinic shall employ or

cause to be employed or take services of any person, whether on honorary

basis or on payment who does not possess the qualification as above.

Contrary to the Act/ Amendment Rules 2014, the Director-in-Chief, Health

services, Government of Jharkhand intimated (December 2014) all DAAs that

40

In six test checked districts out of 751 centers in the States 41

for regulation of genetic counseling centers, genetic laboratories and genetic clinics


24

the existing doctors who are employed in a genetic clinic or USG or imaging

centre on the basis of one year experience or six months training and given

exemption from appearing in the CBE to work in the USG centres. Audit

observed that the Amendment Rule 2014 has mentioned only about the

exemption from appearing in the training in the notified institutions and not

permitted such doctors to work in any USG centres for undertaking

sonography until they meet the other conditions of the Amendment Rule 2014.

This resulted in irregularities in the implementation of the Act as discussed

below:

2.2.2.2 (i) Functioning of USG centres with unqualified doctors

As per records of PCPNDT cell of National Health Mission (NHM), 599

doctors were working in the 702 registered and functional USG centres42

in

the State as on March 2017. Of these, 360 doctors (60 per cent) were

qualified43

to conduct ultrasound in the USG centres in line with the above

rule while 22744

(38 per cent) doctors were not qualified (excluding 12

unqualified doctors working with 10 qualified doctors in 10 USG centres) to

work in the USG centres as detailed in table 1:

Table 1: USG centres with qualified and unqualified doctors

USG

centres

Working

doctors

USG centres

where qualified

doctors work

USG centres where

unqualified doctors

work alone

Breakup of USG centres and unqualified doctors

USG

centres

Doctors USG

centres

Doctors USG

Centres

(only

MBBS)

Unqualified

doctors

(only

MBBS)

USG

Centres

(MBBS plus

experienced/

trained)

Unqualified

but trained

doctors

(MBBS plus

experienced/

trained)

702 599 442 360 250 227 87 81 163 146

(Source: Information provided by PCPNDT Cell of NHM)

As seen from the table, 250 USG centres (36 per cent) in 19 out of 24 districts

of the State have engaged 227 unqualified doctors (38 per cent) without any

qualified doctors on their panel in violation of section 3(2) of the Act. Of

these, 87 USG centres have engaged 81 MBBS doctors without any

experience or training while 163 USG centres have appointed 146 MBBS

doctors, though having one year experience/six months training, but without

the mandatory clearance of CBE.

2.2.2.2. (ii) Districts with high concentration of unqualified doctors

The five major districts which have the highest numbers of USG centres with

unqualified doctors are shown in table 2:

42

Out of 751 USG centres in the State. The PCPNDT Cell could not furnish details of

doctors working in the balance 49 USG centres. This requires investigation. 43

171 have degrees in Radiology and 189 were doctors from other streams with requisite

qualifications 44

Bokaro-18, Chatra-03, Deoghar-04, Dhanbad-25, Dumka-06, East Singhbhum-21, Giridih-

07, Godda-06, Garhwa-11, Gumla-02, Hazaribagh-03, Koderma-06, latehar-03, Palamu-

25, Ranchi-58, Ramgarh-20, Sahibganj-02, Saraikela-02, West Singhbhum-05


25

Table 2: Five major districts/USG centres with highest unqualified doctors

Districts USG

Centres

Doctors USG centres

engaging

unqualified

doctors

Breakup of USG centres and unqualified

doctors

USG

Centres

Doctors USG

Centres

(MBBS)

Doctors

(MBBS) USG

Centres

(MBBS + experienced/

trained)

Doctors

(MBBS + experienced/

trained)

Ranchi 198 163 66 58 45 39 21 19

Dhanbad 64 76 25 25 0 0 25 25

Palamu 31 29 27 25 0 0 27 25

East

Singhbhum 133 91 25 21 13 13 12 08

Ramgarh 35 31 23 20 0 0 23 20

(Source: Information provided by PCPNDT Cell of NHM)

As may be seen, 39 per cent USG centres (25 out of 64) in Dhanbad have

engaged 33 per cent (25 out of 76) unqualified doctors while 33 per cent USG

centres (66 out of 198) in Ranchi have engaged 36 per cent (58 out of 163)

unqualified doctors. Interestingly, East Singhbhum which has the highest

numbers of USG centres after Ranchi has 23 per cent unqualified doctors (21

out of 91) working in 19 per cent (25 out of 133) of the USG centres.

Functioning of these USG centres by unqualified doctors violates the Act and

resulted in sonographies by unqualified doctors, putting at risk the life of

patients who may undergo treatment based on such reports.

2.2.2.2 (iii) Findings in test checked USG centres

In the test-checked districts, 126 unqualified doctors working in 136 USG

centres conducted 59,959 sonographies during 2014-17 of which, 604 were

done by 56 inexperienced and untrained MBBS doctors in 61 USG centres.

Further, Audit visited 72 selected USG centres and reviewed 3,717

sonography cases conducted in the month of March 2017 in these centres from

Form-‘F’. Findings are shown in Table 3:

Table 3: Sonography in test checked USG centres

Particulars Qualified

doctors

Unqualified doctors Grand Total

(qualified +

unqualified) Total MBBS MBBS and

trained

No. of doctors 70 16 08 08 86

USG centres 57 15 07 08 72

Sonographies

done

3511 206 113 93 3717

(Source: Joint physical inspection of the USG centres by Audit with the representatives of

concerned DAAs)

In 15 USG centres, 16 doctors who are not qualified to conduct sonographies

were working alone during 2014-17 and have also conducted 206

sonographies in March 2017 and issued reports in contravention to the Act. Of

these, 113 sonographies were done by eight MBBS doctors in seven USG

centres who did not even have any work experience or training.


26

It was observed in Audit that the concerned District Appropriate Authorities

responsible for granting registrations failed to verify violations of section 3(2)

of the Act by the USG centres in engaging doctors who were not eligible to

work in the USG centres. Resultantly, no actions were taken against these

centres under section 23 (1) of the Act which stipulates imprisonment up to

three years and with fine up to ` 10,000 for persons owning genetic counseling

centre/laboratory/clinic and contravening any of the provisions of this Act or

rules made thereunder. Moreover, the Department did not take any steps to

restrict the USG centres from functioning with unqualified doctors.

The ACS of the Department agreed (January 2018) that only qualified doctors

can render service in the USG centres or MBBS doctors have to take six

months training from a State notified institution and clear the CBE to work in

the centres. The ACS further stated that in Jharkhand, only one CBE exam has

been conducted and second exam could not be held due to stay on the

examination by High Court. The ACS also stated that an Interlocutory

Application (IA) has been filed by the department in the High court,

Jharkhand to vacate the stay and till then no existing clinics having only

MBBS doctors would be closed. Further, the ACS informed Audit that no new

registrations and renewals are being given to clinics that are not fulfilling the

qualification criteria as per the PCPNDT Act (six months training45

Rule

2014).

The reply of ACS is not acceptable as (i) the functioning of USG centres with unqualified doctors contravenes the Act; (ii) the problem was created when DAAs who were required to ensure the qualifications of the medical personnel of the USG Centres, in accordance with the section 3(2) of the Act, failed to do so; and (iii) the Department filed (September 2017) IA only after more than one year of stay order (July 2016) by High Court and this enable unqualified doctors to continue to work in the USG centres.

2.2.2.3 Single Radiologist in multiple USG centres

As per GoI notification (June 2012), each medical practitioner qualified under

the Act to conduct ultrasonography in a genetic clinic/ultrasound

clinic/imaging centre shall be permitted to be registered with a maximum of

two such clinics/centres within a district. Further, the CSB also instructed

(May 2015) the Principal Secretary of the Department to restrict qualified

medical practitioners to register and work in a maximum of two centres.

Scrutiny of records of PCPNDT cell of NHM revealed that the Principal

Secretary forwarded (June 2015) the letter of CSB to Mission Director, NHM

and Nodal Officer (Director, Health Services), PCPNDT for taking immediate

action. However, Audit did not find evidence of any action in the files of the

Nodal Officer.

Audit further observed from the list of registered USG centres in the State

maintained by the PCPNDT cell that in five districts46

(two out of six sampled

and three other districts), 18 radiologists were registered with 71 USG centres

45

Rule 9 of PCPNDT (six months training) Rules, 2014 stipulates that the registered medical

practioners employed in a USG centre on the basis of one year experience or six months

training shall have to clear CBE examination. 46

Bokaro, Deoghar, East Singhbhum, Ranchi and West Singhbhum


27

97.1

9

20.5

6

129.0

4

35.6

9

20.5

6

21.3

8

7.6

9

12

.07

6.1

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Proposed

Allotment

Expenditure

during 2014-17 which involved a minimum of three USG centres per

radiologist and a maximum of six USG centres per radiologist in violation of

the notifications of GoI (Appendix-2.2.1). Although no reasons were on record

of the Directorate of NHM, one of the possible causes observed by Audit was

failure of the SIMC to conduct inspections of the USG centres (as commented

in paragraph 2.2.4.7(i)) to report cases of violation of the instructions of GoI to

the SSB where the Principal Secretary holds the position of ex-officio Deputy

Chairman. The fact of one radiologist registered in multiple USG centres has

two implications: (i) since the radiologist is unavailable for most of the time

the patient of these USG centres are required to wait for unduly long period of

time, perhaps days, and they are subject to acute and unwarranted distress; (ii)

patients are attended to by unqualified doctors, with the qualified radiologist

only signing the reports.

Accepting (January 2018) the audit observation, the ACS assured corrective

action, which is awaited (May 2018).

Recommendation

The Department should initiate appropriate action against (i) unqualified

doctors performing sonography, (ii) USG centres who permit such

unqualified doctors to perform sonographies, and (iii) DAAs who

registered such USG centres despite their not having qualified doctors.

2.2.3 Financial Management

National Health Mission (NHM), Government of India (GoI) provides

financial resources for implementation of PCPNDT Act, 1994 in the State. In

addition, the State Government also collects fees for registration of genetic

counselling centres, genetic laboratories, genetic clinics, ultrasound clinics and

imaging centres.

The details of allotment and expenditure during 2014-17 are depicted below: (`̀̀̀ in lakh)

(Source: Directorate, NHM, Jharkhand) Audit observed that:

• During 2014-17, GoI allocated ` 77.63 lakh against the proposed budget of

` 2.47 crore for implementation of various components47

of the Act. The short

allocation was due to the underutilisation of allotted funds by the Department.

47

Support to PCPNDT cell and Other activities (annual orientation programme, mapping of

USG centres, printing of Flip Book, annual rallies/road shows/nukkad, permanent flex

hoarding etc)


28

The Department utilised only ` 25.93 lakh (33 per cent) and ` 51.70 lakh

remain unutilised on account of failure to conduct activities like orientation

programmes, mapping of USG centres, information, education and

communication (IEC) activities consisting of various awareness programmes

through print and electronic media etc.

• Rule 5 (2) of PCPNDT Rules 1996, stipulate maintenance of separate bank

accounts for implementation of PCPNDT Act. All amounts including those

realised by the DAAs in the form of fee, penalties etc., are to be kept in this

bank account and spent on implementation of the Act.

In the six test checked districts, two DAAs maintained separate bank accounts

for implementation of PCPNDT Act. However, four48

DAAs did not maintain

separate bank accounts in violation of the Rules and used the bank accounts

maintained in the designation of Civil Surgeon. These four DAAs and the

SAA did not furnish any reason for failing to comply with the PCPNDT Rules

1996. Maintenance of common bank account may prevent verification of cash

book balance with the balance in the bank accounts as it would not be possible

to ascertain if the balance in the bank pertains to funds received for

implementation of the Act or for the other receipts of Civil Surgeon. Further,

the six DAAs realised ` 55.41 lakh from fees, penalties etc., during 2014-17,

but spent only ` 15.38 lakh (28 per cent) as the DAAs did not undertake IEC

activities in three districts and partially executed these activities in the other

three districts, and the balance of ` 40.03 lakh was parked in bank accounts.

Thus, the Department neither ensured utilisation of funds by the DAAs

nor provided funds for essential activities such as decoy operations

[commented in paragraph 2.2.4.9 (ii)] etc. As a result, the Department could

not efficiently enforce the Act. No reply has been furnished by the Department

(March 2018).

Recommendation

The Department should ensure full utilisation of the allocated funds by

the DAAs on the approved activities for smooth implementation of the

Act.

2.2.4 Monitoring and inspection for implementation of the Act

2.2.4.1 Institutional arrangement under the Act

The PCPNDT Act and Rules notified thereunder envisages constitution of

State Supervisory Board (SSB), State Appropriate Authority (SAA), State

Advisory Committee (SAC) and State Inspection and Monitoring Committee

(SIMC) bodies at State level and District Appropriate Authority (DAA),

District Advisory Committee (DAC) and District Inspection and Monitoring

Committee (DIMC) at district level for proper monitoring and inspection of

implementation of PCPNDT Act and Rules in the State. Details of roles and

functions are narrated below in Table 4.

48

Dhanbad, East Singhbhum, Sahibganj and Gumla


29

Table 4: Roles and functions of different statutory bodies

Body Headed

by/composition

of statutory

body

Role Function

State Supervisory

Board (SSB)

Minister-in-

charge49

Supervision To create public awareness against the practice of

pre-conception sex selection and pre-natal

determination of sex of foetus leading to female

foeticide in the state; to review the activities of the

Appropriate Authorities functioning in the State and

recommend appropriate action against them; to

monitor the implementation of provisions of the Act

and the rules and make suitable recommendations

to the Board and to send such consolidated reports

as may be prescribed in respect of the various

activities undertaken in the State under the Act to

the Board and to the Central Government.

State Appropriate

Authority (SAA)

Officer above

the rank of Joint

Director50

Implementation

of the Act at

State level

To grant, suspend or cancel registration of USG

Centres; to enforce standards prescribed for USG

centres; to investigate complaints of breach of the

provisions of the Act, to create public awareness, to

supervise the implementation of provisions of the

Act and rules, to take appropriate legal action

against the use of any sex selection technique, take

action on recommendations of the Advisory

Committee etc.

State Advisory

Committee (SAC)

Specialist

Obstetric and

Gynaecologist 51

Assist SAA To aid and advise the Appropriate Authority in the

discharge of its functions

State Inspection

and Monitoring

Committee

(SIMC)

Senior Regional

Deputy Director

(RDD)52

Surprise visits

to USG centres

Conduct surprise visits to ultrasound centres, check

their compliance, records, to deploy as decoy,

pregnant women if need arises, facilitate search and

seizure by the District Appropriate Authorities

within the State.

District

Appropriate

Authority (DAA)

Civil Surgeon

cum Chief

Medical Officer

Implementation

of the Act at

district level

Implement the Act at the district level, register

ultrasound clinics/hospitals, inspect them,

investigate complaints and file court complaints

District Advisory

Committee

(DAC)

Civil Surgeon

cum Chief

Medical

Officer53

Assist DAA Advisory body to the DAA in implementing the Act

District

Inspection and

Monitoring

Committee

(DIMC)

DAA/Member of

DAC54

Inspection of

USG centres

Ensure registration certificate displayed in every

USG centre, USG machine number tallied with

machine number entered in registration certificate,

timely submission of form by USG centres, take

legal action against violators and sent pregnant

women for decoy operations.

(Source: PCPNDT Directorate and provisions of Act and Rules)

49

Secretary, Health as Deputy Chairman, Mission Director, NHM as member secretary and

19 members 50

Including State Programme Director and one representative from Law Department 51

Including Paediatric specialist, Advocate High Court, Director Information and

Broadcasting Department and three members from NGO 52

Including four RDD, two Lawyer and four NGOs 53

Including Nodal Officer PCPNDT, one Public Prosecutor, one Pediatrician, one

Gynecologist and two members 54

Including one social worker/member from NGO and First class Judicial Magistrate


30

Audit observed the following deficiencies in the constitution and functioning

of some of these bodies:

2.2.4.2 Delay in constitution of Statutory Bodies

As per Section 16A and 17(2) of the PCPNDT Act, the State Government was

to constitute the SSB and SAC for a period of three years and thereafter SSB

and SAC would be reconstituted.

Scrutiny of records of Directorate, NHM revealed that these were constituted

in August 2011 and their term ended in August 2014. However, these were re-

constituted after a delay of almost two years i.e., in June 2016 due to delay in

issuing notification for reconstitution. During the intervening period from

September 2014 to May 2016 the SSB and SAC functioned unauthorisedly

and convened one and two meetings of SSB and SAC respectively. These

shortcomings resulted in absence of supervision and monitoring of provisions

of PCPNDT Act at the State level as discussed in succeeding paragraphs

2.2.4.7 (i) and 2.2.4.7 (ii)

The Director cum Nodal Officer, PCPNDT stated (March 2018) that the delay

in constitution was due to delay in their notification and consequently delay in

approval by the State Government. The reply is not acceptable. It was the

responsibility of the State Government to get the notification issued on time.

Further, though the SSB (February 2015) and SAC (March 2014 and October

2014) resolved to reconstitute the statutory bodies, the Department failed to

reconstitute these on time.

2.2.4.3 Constitution of Sub-District Appropriate Authority

As per guidelines of GoI and GoJ55

, a Sub-District Appropriate Authority

(SDAA) was required to be constituted by the State Government for

implementation of the Act at grass root level. Section 17 (2) of the Act ibid

also stipulates appointment of Appropriate Authorities for whole or part of the

State. SSB in its meeting (June 2012) also instructed effective implementation

of the PCPNDT Act 1994 in the whole State.

Audit noticed that no such committee was constituted in any of the six test

checked districts by the Department for reasons not on record. Thus,

monitoring and inspection of implementation of the Act was not ensured at

grass root level as discussed in paragraphs 2.2.4.7 (iii) and 2.2.4.7 (iv).

The SAA stated (March 2018) that at present Civil Surgeons (CS) function as

DAAs for implementation of PCPNDT Act in the district and steps are being

taken to make the Deputy Commissioners of Districts as the DAA and the Sub

Divisional Officers (SDOs) as Sub-District Appropriate Authority. It is

therefore evident that the provisions of the Act and instruction of GoI56

/GoJ

have not been complied with.

Recommendation

The Department should establish Sub-District Appropriate Authorities at

the earliest to strengthen the institutional arrangements to fulfil the

55

Guidelines for effective implementation of PCPNDT Act 1994 issued by Government of

Jharkhand 56

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guidelines issued by GoI for DAA


31

mandate of the Act and ensure strengthening of supervisory and advisory

committees.

2.2.4.4 Formation of District Advisory Committee (DAC)

As per chapter 3(7) of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chairperson

of District Advisory Committee (DAC) would be appointed only from the

members of the DAC. Further, the DAA can neither become a member nor

Chairperson of DAC.

Audit observed that the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officers of the test

checked districts functioned both as DAA and the Chairperson of the DAC in

contravention of the SOP.

The Director cum Nodal Officer, PCPNDT stated (March 2018) that steps are

being taken to make the Deputy Commissioners of the districts as the DAA.

2.2.4.5 Implementation of recommendations of Statutory Bodies

Audit noticed that Central Supervisory Board recommended (October 2014)

three issues for implementation during 2014-17 of which, one was partially

implemented and two were not acted upon by the State Government

(SAA/DAAs) due to failure of the Principal Secretary of the Department who

was the ex-officio deputy Chairman of the SSB to follow-up the

recommendation with the SAA/DAAs. Likewise, the State Supervisory Board

recommended 14 issues out of which two were implemented, six were

partially implemented on account of failure to conduct awareness programme

about the Act in three out of six sampled districts while six recommendations

were not implemented due to failure to appoint legal expert, absence of funds

for activities like decoy operations, non-involvement of stakeholders, absence

of inspections, dedicated website etc. as detailed in Appendix-2.2.2. A

summary of the important recommendations of CSB/SSB (policy making

bodies) which were not implemented by the implementing bodies of the State

are listed below:

Sl. No. Recommendations Status of implementation

Central Supervisory Board

1 Restricting qualified Doctors to

two clinics to operate ultrasound

machine in a district.

SAA/DAAs were responsible for implementation of this

recommendation. However, the recommendation was not

implemented as observed in two out of six sampled

districts and three other districts where 18 radiologists

were registered with more than two USG centres as

discussed in para 2.2.2.3

2 Online grievance/complaint

portal for receiving complaints

Nodal Officer, PCPNDT (SAA) was to implement this

recommendation. Against the recommendation (May

2015) to set-up online grievances/complaint portal for the

Act, the Nodal Officer took up development of website for

PCPNDT which included provision of grievance redressal

portal only in August 2017 for completion by December

2017. However, it was not completed till April 2018 as

discussed in paragraph 2.2.4.9 (i)

State Supervisory Board

3 Inspection of ultrasound clinics

by State Inspection and

Monitoring committee

SIMC did not carry out any inspection of USG centres

during 2014-17 although constituted in August 2011 by

GoJ to undertake field visits and conduct monitoring and

surprise inspections of USG centres as discussed in

paragraph 2.2.4.7(i). SAA stated that members of SIMC


32

were engaged with other programme and hence,

inspections could not be held. The reply was not

acceptable as engagement with other programmes did not

absolve the members of SIMC of the responsibility of

inspection of the USG centres for which this body was

created.

4 Online tracking of Form ’F’57

Nodal Officer, PCPNDT was responsible to ensure this.

However, online tracking of Form F was not done as the

website of PCPNDT which would facilitate such tracking

was not completed (April 2018) as discussed in para

2.2.4.9 (i)

5 GIS mapping of USG centres Nodal Officer, PCPNDT was responsible for GIS mapping

of USG centres. The mapping work was completed in five

districts58

and in progress (January 2018) in the remaining

19 out of 24 districts. However, in none of the test

checked districts, GIS mapping work has been completed

till January 2018 as the vendors did not submit report of

sale and purchase of machines to SAA as discussed in para

2.2.4.8 (iii) which prevented identification of the USG

machines for mapping work.

Although the recommendations were not acted upon, no accountability was

fixed or contemplated against the Nodal Officer, PCPNDT (SAA) or the

concerned CS cum CMO (DAAs). The ACS of the Department, while accepting (January 2018) the facts, stated

that development of website for online grievances and redress was in process

and online tracking of form ‘F’ will be done after launching of PCPNDT

website. It was further stated that instructions have been sent to all the DAAs

(July 2015) for random scrutiny of Form ‘F’.

The fact remains that non-implementation of the recommendations adversely

impacted the implementation of the Act in the districts in the form of delays in

renewal/registration of USGs centres, failure to keep track of missing

deliveries, poor maintenance of records, unsatisfactory generation of monthly

reports, inadequate meetings, etc., as discussed in succeeding paragraphs. This

in turn had prevented the State Government from assessing the overall

effectiveness of implementation of the Act in the State.

Recommendation

The Department should ensure immediate implementation of the

recommendations of Statutory Bodies.

2.2.4.6 Meetings by Statutory Bodies

2.2.4.6 (i) Shortfall in meeting of SSB

Under the guidelines, SSB is to meet at least once in four months to review the

activities of Appropriate Authorities.

Audit scrutiny revealed that SSB held only two meetings59

against the required

nine60

meetings during 2014-17 for which no reasons were on files of SSB

57

Form for maintenance of record in case of Prenatal Diagnostic test/procedure by genetic

clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre 58

Bokaro, Hazaribagh ,Khunti, Ramgarh and Ranchi 59

18 February 2015 and 16 November 2016 60

Once in fourth month (3x3) = nine meetings


33

maintained in the PCPNDT cell of NHM. Shortfall in the meetings adversely

affected the supervision of implementation of the Act.

2.2.4.6 (ii) Shortfalls in meetings of SAC/DAC

SAC and DAC are to hold meetings once in 60 days for effective monitoring

of implementation of the PCPNDT Act/Rules.

Audit scrutiny revealed that SAC met only three times (17 per cent) against

the required 18 meetings while total numbers of meetings held by DAC in six

sampled districts are depicted in Table 5.

Table 5: DAC meetings in test-checked districts during 2014-17

Sl.

No.

Name of District No. of meetings

due to be

conducted

No. of

meetings

conducted

Shortfall

(in per cent)

1 2 3 (3 years x 6

times)

4 5

1 Dhanbad 18 08 56

2 Jamshedpur 18 09 50

3 Ranchi 18 18 Nil

4 Sahibganj 18 Nil 100

5 Koderma 18 02 89

6 Gumla 18 01 94

TOTAL 108 38 66

• DAC conducted 78 meetings (18 per cent) in the state against the

requirement of 43261

meetings during 2014-17.

• In the test checked districts, DAC met 38 times (35 per cent) against the

requirement of 108 meetings which ranged between zero (Sahibganj) and

18 (Ranchi) meetings during 2014-17. As a result of shortage of meetings

by these bodies, monitoring activities remained incomplete and ineffective.

The ACS of the Department, while accepting (January 2018) the facts, stated

that due to non-availability of Chairperson, only five meetings of SAC had

been held and instruction has been sent to conduct the DAC meeting within

the time frame.

The reply was not acceptable as the concerned Chairperson was not available

only during 2015-16 and the Principal Secretary of the Department had not

nominated any other Chairperson during that period. Even when 2015-16 is

not taken into consideration, there was still shortfall in the number of meetings

to the extent of 75 per cent during the availability (2014-15) of the concerned

Chairperson. Thus, the Department cannot absolve itself of its responsibility in

ensuring availability of Chairperson or justify the shortfall in the number of

meetings during 2014-16.

2.2.4.7 Inspection of ultrasonography centres

Rule 18-A (8) (i) of PCPNDT Amendment Rules, 2014, prescribes that all the

DAAs are to inspect and monitor all registered centres once every 90 days and

preserve inspection report as documentary evidence to ensure enforcement of

the provisions of the Act by the USG centres. Further, as per rule 18-A (8)

61

Once in two months i.e. 24 (districts in the state) x3 years x6 times in a year= 432

During 2014-17 the

SSB held only two

against required nine

meetings, SAC met

only three times

against required 18

meetings and DAC

held only 78 meetings

against the required

432 meetings


34

(ii), the CS cum DAA is required to conduct regular inspections of USG

centres and submit all inspection reports once in three months to DAC for

follow up action.

2.2.4.7 (i) Inspections by State Inspection and Monitoring Committee

(SIMC)

The body was constituted in August 2011 by GoJ to undertake field visits and

conduct monitoring and surprise inspection of USGs centres. However, SIMC

neither carried out any field visits nor conducted inspection of any USG centre

during 2014-17. This was also reported (December 2015) by the National

Inspection and Monitoring Committee to the Principal Secretary.

Although the ACS of the Department did not reply to the audit observation,

the SAA stated that members of SIMC were engaged with other programme

and hence, regular inspection could not be held. The reply was not acceptable

as engagement with other programmes did not absolve the members of SIMC

of the responsibility of surprise inspection of the USG centres for which this

body was created.

2.2.4.7 (ii) Inadequate inspections by DAAs

Scrutiny of records of PCPNDT cell revealed that only 244 inspections (three

per cent) against targeted 8,608 inspections were conducted by CS cum DAAs

in the State during 2014-17. In test checked districts, 96 inspections (two per cent) against required 5,060 inspections were carried out by DAAs during

2014-17.

As against the prescribed quarterly inspection of each USG centres by DAAs,

the shortfall in inspection of USG centres ranged between two and 40 per cent in all the six test checked districts of the state. In important districts such as

Ranchi (capital city) and Jamshedpur, the DAAs did not carry out any

inspection, although the Director, Health Services who functions as Nodal

Officer, PCPNDT and the Principal Secretary, who acts as the ex-officio

Deputy Chairperson of the State Supervisory Board were based in Ranchi

itself, which indicates the level of deficiency in monitoring and supervision of

the implementation of the Act. Interestingly, the inspection by DAA in the

remote Sahibganj district was 40 per cent of the requirement compared to

other districts.

One of the primary reasons of shortfall in the inspections, as observed by

Audit, is the dual roles the DAAs perform which are mostly administrative in

nature concurrently with their duties as Civil Surgeons cum Chief Medical

Officers. The Nodal Officer, PCPNDT informed (March 2018) Audit that

steps are being taken to nominate Deputy Commissioners as DAA.

Further, during the course of visit to nine62

out of 72 sampled USG centres,

Audit observed deficiencies such as non-maintenance of basic records by the

centres, USGs conducted by unqualified doctors’, unavailability of backup of

62

Life line clinic & diagnostic center, Bharat ultra sound, Sahara ultrasound, Rahat

ultrasound, Bhadani Diagnostic Centre, Koderma, St. Josheph Hospital, Urmi, Dumardih,

Gumla, and Tejswini USG Clinic, Surya Nurshing Home, and Utkarsh Nursing Home,

Sahibganj


35

images, absence of name, registration number and qualification of radiologist

on the display board etc., as commented in paragraphs 2.2.2.2. and 2.2.4.7

(iii). These nine USG centres were also inspected by the concerned DAAs but

these irregularities were not mentioned in the inspections reports by the

DAAs63

. In fact, the inspection reports did not mention any irregularities at all

in these USG centres. Thus, the irregularities were concealed by the DAAs

from the DAC and State Level Authorities and possible nexus between the

DAAs and the USG centres, cannot be ruled out. The ACS of the Department

did not furnish any reason for shortfall in inspections of diagnostic centres or

suppression of facts by the DAAs.

Recommendation

The Department should ensure required numbers of inspections by SIMC

and DAAs and shall take appropriate action against those DAAs whose

inspections of the nine USG centres did not reveal the irregularities

noticed by Audit.

2.2.4.7 (iii) Joint Physical Inspection of USG centres by Audit and Auditee

In order to ascertain whether the USG centres adhered to the provisions of

PCPNDT Act/ Rules, joint physical inspections (JPIs) of 72 USG centres in

the test checked districts were conducted by audit teams along with the

representative of CS cum DAAs and Nodal Officer, PCPNDT. In these 72

centres, Audit test checked 3,717 cases (40 per cent) (Form-F) out of 9,401

cases (Appendix 2.2.3) during 2014-17 and the main violations noticed are

tabulated below:

Table 6: Violation of PCPNDT Act by USG Centres

Sl. No. Audit Findings PCPNDT Clause

1. Basic details of patient such as number of living children, phone number,

address etc. to track records of pregnancy were not filled in 2,257 cases (61

per cent). PMCH Dhanbad did not submit Form ‘F’ during 2014-17 despite

being a Government hospital.

Violation of rules 9(4)

and 10(1A) of Rules,

1996

2. In 979 cases (26 per cent) referral slips of registered medical practitioners

were not found attached for conducting sonography.

Violation of rules 9(3)

and 9(4) of Rules, 1996

3. In 49 USG centres (68 per cent), backups/ records of images taken during

ultrasonography were not kept for the prescribed period of two years

(Appendix-2.2.3)

Violation of Section 29 of

PCPNDT Act

4. USG centres were to intimate any change in its employees, place, address

and installed equipment to DAA within 30 days. Further, only registered

radiologists are permitted to practice in any USG centre. However, 14

USG centres (19 per cent) had employed radiologists other than the

radiologists registered with the DAAs. Likewise, three out of 20 USGs

centres in Dhanbad had different USG machines than those registered

without any intimation to DAA (Appendix-2.2.4).

Violation of rule 13 of

PCPNDT Rules 1996

5. Name, registration and qualification of the radiologist are to be displayed at

prominent place. JPI revealed that in 19 centres (26 per cent) such details

were not displayed.


PCPNDT Rules 1996

6. As per guidelines issued by the GoI, display board stating that “Disclosure

of the sex of the foetus is prohibited under law” is to be displayed in

english and in the regional language. JPI revealed that in 26 centres (36 per cent) of test-checked districts, displays were only in a single language.


PCPNDT Rules 1996

63

Civil Surgeon is the DAA. Members are nominated by the DAAs which includes Medical

officers, Lawyers and representative of NGOs.

Basic details

of patient

to track

records of

pregnancy,

were not

filled in

2,257 cases

In 979

cases

(26 per cent),

there were

no referral

slips of

registered

medical

practitioners


36

7. Communication of sex of foetus by words, signs or any other manner to

any person, pregnant women or relatives is prohibited. JPI revealed that in

four test-checked centres64

indicative photographs were found pasted on the

wall of USG centres, which have high probability of being misused to

communicate the sex of foetus.

SOP guidelines for DAAs

8. In the test checked districts, 17 USG centres (24 per cent) out of 72 centres

had not been maintaining any records, registers etc. Violation of Rules 9(4)

and 10(1A) of rules 1996

Thus, the JPI revealed that 97 per cent (70 out of 72) of test checked USG

centres in both Government as well as private sector were violating one or

more provisions of the PCPNDT Act/ Rules made thereunder.

Further, the PCPNDT Act envisages penalties for the contravention of

provisions of the Act like suspension/cancellation of registration of USG

centres under section 20, punishment with imprisonment up to three years or

fine up to ` 10,000 under section 23 and punishment with imprisonment up to

three months or fine up-to ` 1,000 under Section 25. However, neither penalty

was imposed nor registration suspended for any of these centres which was

largely due to inadequate inspections / meetings of DAC and non-reporting by

the DAAs of incidents of violation of Act provisions by the USG centres as

commented in paragraph 2.2.4.7 (iv). As these were findings in the sampled

USG centres and the possibility of these deficiencies happening in other USG

centres of the State cannot be ruled out, the Department needs to investigate

cases of violations in other USG centres also to ensure adherence to the Act.


that instructions have been issued to the DAAs for inspection of USGs centres

in a regular basis. Further, it was also stated that action would be taken against

clinics violating the PCPNDT Act, the implementation of which would be

made more stringent in the State.

Recommendation

The Department should ensure regular inspection of USG centres to

prevent violations of the Act, and take appropriate corrective action.

2.2.4.7 (iv) Functioning of ultrasound centres without valid registrations

Every certificate of registration of ultrasound clinics issued by the CS cum

DAA is valid for a period of five years. For renewal of registration,

application has to be made 30 days before the date of expiry of the certificate

of registration. In the event of failure of the USG centres to apply for renewal

of registration before 30 days of expiry of the certificate of registration, the

DAA can take action as per provision of Section 25 of PCPNDT Act, 1994

which stipulates punishment with imprisonment up to three months or with

fine up to ` 1,000 or with both. If the Appropriate Authority fails to renew the

certificate of registration or to communicate rejection of application for

renewal of registration within 90 days of such application, it will amount to

automatic renewal or deemed renewal.

Review of 72 of the sampled clinics under GHs, PHs and NHs in the test

checked districts revealed delayed issuance/ renewal of registration certificates

by the concerned DAAs as discussed below:

64

1. Harmu Hospital & Research Center, Harmu, Ranchi 2. Discovery Diagnostic, Sakchi, 3.

Kantilal Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Sakchi 4. Doctors Diagnostics, Sakchi, Jamshedpur.


37

• In nine out of 72 test-checked USG centres, there were delays ranging

between 73 days and more than three years in renewal of registration of

centres (Appendix-2.2.5). In one case there was delay of 80 days in fresh

registration of one USG centre under Patliputra Medical College and

Hospital (PMCH), Dhanbad by the DAA Dhanbad. The Hospital applied

for registration of USG centre on 30 December 2013 which however, was

issued by the DAA on 30 May 2014.

• In 21 out of 72 test-checked USG centres, there were delays ranging

between 15 days and more than three years in submission of renewal

applications by the USG clinics (Appendix-2.2.6).

Audit noticed that the main reason for delayed issuance of registration

certificates was delayed submission of renewal applications by the USG

centres resulting from failure of the DAAs to enforce their timely submissions,

as these activities were not monitored by the SAA at the Apex level. In

addition, the delays were also on account of failure of the DACs to renew

licenses on time on grounds of delayed meetings as DAA issues the

registration certificates only upon seeking recommendation from DAC which

advises the DAA on this matter.

It was noticed that all the 30 (42 per cent) USG centres functioned illegally in

the intervening period without registration and got renewed subsequently

without paying any penalty. This is because the State higher authorities (SAA,

SSB and SIMC) failed to intervene in respect of the defaulting USG clinics

and the defaulting DAAs as stipulated under Section 25 of the Act. The

concerned DAAs accepted (May 2017) these facts and stated that timely

registration would be ensured in future. As these were findings in the sampled

USG centres and the possibility of these deficiencies happening in other USG

centres of the State cannot be ruled out, the Department needs to investigate

cases of violations in other USG centres also to ensure adherence to the Act.


that instructions for timely issuance of Registration/Renewal of certificates

had been sent to all DAAs and this would not be repeated in future. It was also

stated that action would be taken against the clinics for failure to submit

renewal of application for registration on time.

Recommendation

The Department should levy penalty under section 25 of the Act against

USG centres for delayed submission of renewal applications and the

defaulting DAAs/Nodal Officer, PCPNDT for failing to enforce the Act

provisions.

2.2.4.8 Record maintenance

2.2.4.8 (i) Information of USG centres

As per rule 9 (5) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996, the DAA is to maintain a

permanent record of application in Form H65

about USG centres for grant or

renewal of certificate of registration along with basic details of centres. This is

65

Date of receipt of application, name, address of applicant, details of machine installed,

letters of intimation of every change of employees, place, address and equipment installed,

Committee, registration number allotted, date of renewal and renewed up-to etc.

In nine out of 72 test

checked USG centres

there were delays

ranging between 73

and 1,180 days in

renewal of

registration of centres

by the DAA and this

resulted in

functioning of these

Centres without valid

registrations


38

essential to facilitate inspection and monitoring of the centres to verify and

ensure that USG centres do not carry out illegal practices.

Scrutiny revealed that the DAAs did not maintain detailed records in Form H

in any of the test-checked districts. The concerned DAAs stated that due to

shortage of manpower, detailed information of USG centres in form H could

not be maintained. The replies of DAAs are not acceptable as grant/renewal of

registration required maintenance of information in Form H and since

registrations are done with the available manpower, separate manpower for

maintenance of Form H is not required.

In the absence of such information, DAAs could not prevent the functioning of

the USG centres without valid registrations as discussed in paragraph 2.2.4.7

(iv) besides failing to ensure effective monitoring of USG centres and to detect

any illegal practice.

The ACS of the Department, while accepting (January 2018) the audit

observation, stated that instructions had been issued to all DAAs for

maintenance of records.

2.2.4.8 (ii) Non-receipt of monthly reports from USG centres

Section 29 of the PCPNDT Act and Rule 9 of PCPNDT Rules, 1996

envisaged that every USG centre has to maintain records of patients,

procedures and tests conducted etc., along with details about patient’s case

history in prescribed formats (Form D66

, Form E67

and Form F). These formats

should be sent as monthly report for all diagnostic tests by fifth of the

following month to the concerned DAAs.

In the test checked districts, the submission of monthly reports by the USG

centres to the concerned DAAs are mentioned in the Table 7:

Table 7: Non-submission of monthly reports by USG centres

(Sources: DAAs of test checked districts except Jamshedpur)

(* Not produced to audit by DAA Jamshedpur)

It could be seen from the above table that only 5,649 (35 per cent) monthly

reports68

were submitted by USG clinics against 15,540 reports due to be

66

Form for maintenance of records by the genetic counselling centre 67

Form for maintenance of records by genetic laboratory 68

Year 2014-15, 1,830 reports against 3,300 in Dhanbad, Gumla and Ranchi districts, year

2015-16, 1,919 reports against 3,636 in Dhanbad, Koderma, Ranchi and Sahibganj districts

and year 2016-17, 1,900 (51 per cent) reports against 3,696 in Dhanbad,Gumla, Koderma,

Ranchi and Sahibganj districts.

District

2014-2017

No. of centres

(in three years) Monthly report due Submitted

Deficiency

(per cent)

(1) (2)

(No. of centres multiplied by

12 months)

(3) (4) (5)

Dhanbad 212 2,544 574 77

Jamshedpur 386 4,632 NA* NA*

Ranchi 627 7,524 4,857 35

Sahibganj 16 192 65 66

Koderma 41 492 87 82

Gumla 13 156 66 58

Total 1,295 15,540 5,649 65


39

submitted to DAAs during 2014-17. Further, it was also noticed that DAA

Jamshedpur did not maintain any record to watch the submission of monthly

report by the 386 USG centres during 2014-17. On similar lines, DAAs

Sahibganj and Koderma for the period 2014-15 and DAA Gumla for the

period 2015-16 did not maintain records to keep track of monthly reports

submitted by the concerned USG centres. A primary reason for non-

submission of monthly reports by the USG centres was failure of SIMC and

DIMC to ensure inspection of these centres besides failure of the Nodal

Officer, PCPNDT who heads the SAA for enforcing standards prescribed for

USG centres. As these were findings in the sampled USG centres and the

possibility of these deficiencies happening in other USG centres of the State

cannot be ruled out, the Department needs to investigate cases of violations in

other USG centres also to ensure adherence to the Act.

The ACS of the Department accepted (January 2018) the audit observations,

and stated that instructions have been sent to all DAAs to ensure timely

submission of report by the USG centres.

Recommendation

The Department should impose penalty against the defaulting USG

centres as stipulated under Section 25 of the PCPNDT Act 1994 and

continuously monitor their returns.

2.2.4.8 (iii) Mapping and regulation of ultrasound equipment

As per Rule 18-A (7) of PCPNDT Amendment Rules, 2014 and notification of

GoI (February 2014), SAA/DAAs were required to regulate the use of

ultrasound equipment, monitor their sales, ensure submission of regular

quarterly reports from vendors, conduct periodical survey, audit all USG

machines sold and operating in the State and to file complaint against the

unregistered owner/ seller. Further, SSB also recommended (November 2016)

for geographic information system (GIS) mapping of USG centres.

The Director cum Nodal Officer, PCPNDT reported (January 2018) to Audit

that GIS mapping of USG centres were completed in five districts69

and was in

progress in the remaining 19 districts.

Audit observed, however, that in none of the test checked districts GIS

mapping work has been completed till January 2018 as the vendors did not

submit report of sale and purchase of machines to SAA. Further, the SAA

empowered under section 26 of PCPNDT Act to take legal action against the

vendors did not take any action except issuing (August 2016) notice to six

vendors70

for non-submission of quarterly report. In addition, the DAAs

responsible to monitor sale of machines on a regular basis, ensure submission

of regular quarterly reports from vendors, conduct periodical survey etc., as

mandated under the rules failed to keep track of the sale of USG machines and

their location in the test checked districts. As a result, neither the SAA nor the

DAAs were aware of the sale and purchase of USG machines in the State and

the possibility of unregistered ultrasound machines functioning in the centres 69

Bokaro, Hazaribagh, Khunti, Ramgarh and Ranchi 70

(1) Wipro GE Healthcare, Bengaluru (2) Toshiba, Kolkatta (3) Philips India Ltd, Gurugram

(4) Niranjan ultrasound India, Calicut, Kerala (5) Samsung India Electronic, Gurugram

and (6) Siemens Ltd., Kolkatta


40

could not be ruled out. This was confirmed in Dhanbad district during the joint

physical inspection where three out of the 20 USGs centres visited by Audit

had different USG machines than those registered without any intimation to

DAA Dhanbad. Under these circumstances, mapping of the USG machines,

even if completed, would not guarantee coverage of all sales and purchases.

The ACS of the Department stated (January 2018) that upon completion of

mapping work, it would be uploaded on the website.

Recommendation

The Department should ensure GIS mapping in all districts by

comprehensively covering all the USG machines sold by the vendors

besides ensuring geo tagging of the machines.

2.2.4.8 (iv) Missing deliveries

Government of India instructed (August 2016) the State Government to

monitor and track district wise sex ratio of births as per Civil Registration of

Birth through Health Management Information System (HMIS) data under

NHM and to send monthly updates to GoI.

Audit scrutiny of HMIS data revealed (November 2017) shortfalls in respect

of reported deliveries (institutional and home) against the numbers of

registered pregnant women (PW). During 2014-17, the State had 25,05,257

registered PW of which 20,51,291 (82 per cent) reported institutional and

home deliveries, while the remaining 4,24,71471

(18 per cent) registered PW

were not tracked as the Department did not develop a system for tracking of

registered PWs. Further, in test checked USG clinics, essential details of all

PW as discussed in paragraph 2.2.4.7 (iii) were not maintained.

Non-maintenance of mandatory records in USG clinics corroborated with

absence of tracking system under HMIS was fraught with the probable risk of

sex determination of foetus or illegal termination of pregnancy. This concern

was also expressed by the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical Education and

Family Welfare Department in his letter (March 2015) addressed to all Deputy

Commissioners (DC) and Superintendent of Police (SP) in which he noted that

female foeticide following sex determination is the basic reason for

diminishing child sex ratio in the State. He also ordered the DCs/SPs to

collect information of registered and un-registered USG clinics and inspect

these for smooth implementation of the Act. Further, DAA Ranchi responded

(January 2018) to audit query that missing deliveries is an indicator of the

possibilities of medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) following sex

determination but did not have any mechanism to track these.

However, no follow up action was taken on the orders of the Principal

Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department by the

Director cum Nodal Officer, PCPNDT to track the missing deliveries and

operation of illegal USG and MTP centres.

71

25,05,257 -20,51,291 -29,252 (Medical Termination of Pregnancy(MTP) during 2014-17)

=4,24,714


41

Recommendation

The Department may evolve a mechanism to keep track of missing

deliveries to prevent any possibility of female foeticide.

2.2.4.9 Internal Control

2.2.4.9 (i) Grievance redressal

Grievance redressal in an important component to address social issues and its

remedies. As per Section 17(4) C of the Act, SAA is required to investigate

complaint for breach of provisions of the Act or Rules and take immediate

action based on the recommendation of SAC. Further, GoI instructed (May

2015) the Principal Secretary of the Department to develop an online

grievance/complaint portal for receiving complaints against unethical practice

of sex selection and a comprehensive website containing all relevant

information regarding implementation of PCPNDT Act.

Audit observed that the Principal Secretary instructed (June 2015) the Mission

Director, NHM and Nodal Officer (Director, Health Services), PCPNDT to

take immediate action. The Nodal Officer, however, took up development of

website for PCPNDT only in August 2017 more than two years of instructions

for completion by December 2017. However, reasons for delay on the part of

the Nodal Officer or failure to follow up the case by Principal Secretary were

not recorded in the files of the PCPNDT cell. The work was not completed as

on April 2018. As such, effective redressal of grievances was not ensured

either at State or at district levels.

The ACS of the Department stated (January 2018) that PCPNDT website is

under process and from next year grievance and redressal can be seen online.

Further, presently, the Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society (JRHMS)

website has a separate section for grievance and complaints which can be used

to lodge complaints. The fact remains that the website of JRHMS does not

have any portal for grievances and complaints and the Department has not

disseminated any information on availability of alternative website for

grievance redressal. Resultantly, not a single compliant was recorded in the

Department against violation of the Act as noticed by Audit.

Hence, the instructions of GoI to develop an online grievance/complaint portal

for receiving complaints were not adhered to in more than three years.

Recommendation

The Department should develop and make operational the website and

ensure that online grievance redressal system is functional at the earliest.

The website should carry information about the status of the redressal

along with the authority with whom it is pending.

2.2.4.9 (ii) Decoy Operations

GoI guidelines prescribe carrying out decoy operations by the DAAs in

suspected centres and send decoy cases /pregnant women to concerned

facilities. Further, SAC in its meeting (October 2016) directed to develop

mechanism for “Mukhbir Yojna” to identify illegal sex determination by

clinics.


42

Scrutiny in SAA and six DAAs revealed that SAA neither issued any

instruction nor provided any fund for conduct of decoy operations in test

checked districts. Consequently, no decoy operation was carried out in any of

the test checked districts during 2014-17 to detect violations of PCPNDT Act.

The Director cum Nodal Officer, PCPNDT accepted (January 2018) the facts

and stated that funds for decoy operations in three districts namely Dumka,

Pakur and Palamu has been provided in November 2017.

The fact however, remains that 87 per cent (i.e. 21 out of 24 districts) of the

districts have still not been provided any fund for decoy operation while no

decoy operation was conducted till April 2018 in the three districts where fund

was provided.

Recommendation

The Department should ensure the conduct of periodic decoy operations

to get feedback on misuse of the Act, if any.

2.2.5 Conclusion

The implementation of PCPNDT Act in the State is far from satisfactory as

institutional arrangements such as Sub-district Appropriate Authorities had not

been established in two decades, and State Supervisory Board and State

Advisory Committee were not reconstituted for almost two years between

September 2014 and May 2016. In the intervening period, the

recommendations of the Central as well as State level committees could not be

enforced.

As on March 2017, 250 (36 per cent) genetic/ ultrasonography (USG) centres

in 19 out of 24 districts of the State had only 227 unqualified doctors and no

qualified doctors. Of these, 126 unqualified doctors working in 136 USG

centres in test-checked districts conducted 59,959 sonographies during 2014-

17 in violation of section 3(2) of the Act which stipulates that no genetic/USG

centre shall employ or take services of any person other than sonologist or

imaging specialist or registered medical practioner with post graduate degree

or diploma or having six month training (as per Amendment Rule 2014).

Eighteen radiologists were registered with 71 USG centres in five out of 24

districts during 2014-17 which implied that, on average, one radiologist

worked in three to six USG centres, against the permissible limit of two USG

centres per radiologist.

In 97 per cent (70 out of 72) of test checked USG centres under both

Government and private sector, one or more provisions of the PCPNDT Act/

Rules were violated. This included illegal functioning of 21 USG centres

without valid registrations, non-maintenance of records in 2,257 out of 3,717

cases (61 per cent) for tracking pregnancy, absence of referral slips of

registered medical practitioners in 979 out of 3,717 cases (26 per cent), non-

submission of monthly reports by USG centres in 65 per cent cases etc.

Monitoring activities were ineffective as either no decoy operations were

carried out or required numbers of review meetings held or inspections of

USG centres conducted. The State Supervisory Board conducted two meetings

No decoy operation

was carried out in

any of the test

checked districts or

at the State level to

detect violations of

PCPNDT Act


43

(against nine) while the State Advisory Committee held only three (against 18)

meetings during 2014-17. Further, District Appropriate Authorities conducted

three per cent inspections (244 out of targeted 8,608 inspections) of the USG

centres at state level and only two per cent inspections (96 out of required

5,060 inspections) in the test checked districts during 2014-17 and that too

with suppression of irregularities. Moreover, the Department had not

developed any online grievance/complaint portal or website for the PCPNDT

Act. Thus, the Government had not kept any channel in operation to receive

feedback on the actual status of implementation of the Act and this impaired

the legislative intent behind it.


44

FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT

2.3 Audit on Management of Forest Land in Jharkhand

2.3.1 Introduction

The geographical area of Jharkhand is 79.714 lakh hectare. Of this, 23.605

lakh72

(29.61 per cent) hectare is recorded forest73

which includes 4.387 lakh

hectare reserved forest, 19.185 lakh hectare protected forest and 0.033 lakh

hectare unclassified forest74

.The forest cover in Jharkhand is shown in the map

below:

The Forest Environment and Climate Change Department (Department),

Government of Jharkhand (GoJ), is the administrative department responsible

for scientific forest management practices within the ambit of Acts, Rules and

72

Source: Forest Environment and Climate Change Department, Jharkhand 73

Recorded forest area refers to all the geographic areas recorded as forest in government

records. It consists of Reserved Forest and Protected Forest which have been constituted

under the provisions of Indian Forest Act (IFA), 1927. Thus it constitutes all lands

statutorily notified as forest though they may not necessarily bear tree cover. 74

Reserved Forests: The State Government may constitute any forest land or waste land

which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary

rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is

entitled, to declare it a reserve forest.

Protected Forests: The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette,

declare any forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserved forest but which

is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to

the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled. The forest

land and waste land comprised in any such notification shall be called a “protected forest”.

Unclassified Forests: An area recorded as forest but does not fall under reserved or

protected forest


45

policies including protecting and conserving forest and wildlife resources of

the State.

The Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary (administrative head of the

Department) is assisted by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF),

Regional Chief Conservators of Forests (RCCF) and Conservators of Forests

(CF). There are 67 forest divisions (Territorial75

-31, Wildlife including one

biological park having territorial jurisdiction-six, Social Forestary-10 and

Others-20) under Divisional Forest Officers (DFO) / Deputy Conservators of

Forest (DCF) who are responsible for protection of forest land at division level

and implementation of afforestation schemes at the field level.

Audit aimed to ascertain adequacy and effectiveness of demarcation of the

notified forest land under the Indian Forest Act (IFA) 1927, eviction drives to

free encroached forest land and maintenance of land records for protection of

the forest land by the territorial divisions.

Audit selected 1076

out of 31 territorial divisions and two77

out of six wild life

divisions by Simple Random Sampling without Replacement method. Further,

the offices of four78

out of 13 territorial CFs, two79

out of six RCCFs and the

PCCF were also test checked.

Entry and exit conferences were held with the Principal Secretary and

Additional Chief Secretary respectively to seek government views on

objectives, scope, methodology and audit findings.

The State Government had issued preliminary notifications between 1952 and

1967 under Section 29 (3) of the Act declaring 79 per cent of the forests of the

State as protected forest. The Department headquarters have not maintained

the original records or division wise data on preliminary notifications.

However, in 12 test checked divisions, Audit verified 86 preliminary

notifications.

Audit Findings

2.3.2 Human Resource Management

In the Forest Department, cutting-edge field officials such as foresters, forest

guards, amins (entrusted with maintenance of land records, maps etc., of the

divisions) are responsible for protection, conservation of forest, maintenance

and protection of all the boundary marks in the forest beats and sub-beats

respectively and are required to prevent any encroachment or cultivation in the

forest. For effective management of forest, adequate field level officials are

essential. Against the sanctioned strength, the persons in position in the past

three years are shown in the Table-1:

75

Divisions having territorial jurisdiction 76

1. Bokaro; 2. Dumka; 3. Giridih (East); 4. Hazaribagh (west); 5. Jamshedpur; 6. Kolhan; 7.

Medininagar; 8. Porahat; 9. Saranda and 10. Simdega. 77

1. Buffer Area, PTR and 2 Core Area, PTR 78

1. Chaibasa; 2. Dumka; 3. Gumla and 4. Hazaribagh. 79

1. Bokaro and 2. Palamu


46

Table 1: Sanctioned strength and Person-in-position

The vacancies as indicated in the Table-1 resulted in non-inspection of

maintenance and protection of boundary marks in the forests by foresters and

forest guards as per provision of rule 9.10 of Bihar Forest Rules. This reduced

the efficiency of the Department to safeguard the forest lands and had adverse

impact on the management of forests and their protection as discussed in

paragraph 2.3.5 (i).

Resultantly, the available working strength of foresters (27 per cent) can cover

only up to 6.40 (23.605 x 0.27) lakh hectare forest area and forest guards (six per cent) only up to 1.42 (23.605 x 0.06) lakh hectare on proportionate basis.

Further, the State Government also created a post of forest settlement officer

(FSO) on temporary basis between 1955 and 1967 for conducting survey and

settlement of forest land to secure legal control over the land notified through

preliminary notifications and to submit draft of final notifications of forest

land. Although the department made appointments against the post of FSO on

temporary basis during the aforesaid period, the FSOs neither completed their

survey works nor submitted draft of final notification in any of the cases

where preliminary notifications were issued. The services of the FSOs were

discontinued since 1970. The DFOs neither initiated the process of

appointment of FSOs to complete the works and nor did the Department

pursued the matter. This is one of the major bottlenecks which prevented

issuing final notification arising from incomplete demarcations of forest land

as commented in paragraph 2.3.3.2.

The Department’s response to the shortage have been insufficient and

sporadic. Against 744 vacancies, they recruited 126 foresters in 2014; against

3,632 vacancies, they recruited 1,975 forest guards in 2017, leaving 58 per cent vacancies in the forester cadre and 43 per cent in the forest guard cadre

unfilled. They approached the competent authority (the Revenue Department)

in June 2015 for recruiting 37 amins, (against vacancies of 37 amins at that

time). The Revenue Department took more than two years to return the

proposal (October 2017) for rectifying a defect and the matter after

rectification, is now pending with Government.

Recommendation

Government should recruit, on priority, adequate manpower at field level

for proper management of forests, maintenance of demarcation register

and protection of forest to safeguard the forest land from encroachments.

Year Sanctioned MIP Vacancy in per cent

Forester 2015-16

1,062

368 65

2016-17 325 69

31 March 2017 290 73

Forest

Guard

2015-16

3,883

521 87

2016-17 392 90

31 March 2017 251 94

Amin 2015-16

50

13 74

2016-17 13 74

31 March 2017 11 78

(Sources: PCCF)

Shortage of man

power in the

cadres of

‘Forester’, ‘Forest

Guard’ and

‘Amin’ adversely

impacted the

functioning of the

Department


47

2.3.3 Notification and demarcation of forest land

2.3.3.1 Final notification for protected forest

In order to declare any land as Protected Forest, Government is required to

issue a preliminary notification under proviso80

to the sub section (3) of

Section 29 of the Act, prior to conducting inquiry by survey or settlement to

secure legal control over such land. Then final notification(s) under

provisions (Section 2981

) of the Act which contains exact area with location

of forest land, plot-wise description, with demarcation on both ground and

map, authenticated maps and details of additional area acquired and

demarcated as forest land and details of left out/released area etc., shall be

issued after survey or settlement. In the event of failure to issue final

notification, right of the Department over such land could neither be

ascertained nor be secured and legalised. This exposes the risk of preliminary

notified forest land to encroachment. The process flow of notification is

indicated in Appendix-2.3.1.

In Jharkhand, 79 per cent of the forests were privately owned until the

Zamindari system was abolished under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

The Government took possession of the forests (private protected forest lands

under Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 and unclassified forests land) for control

and protection and issued preliminary notifications under proviso to section 29

of the IFA, 1927 between 1952 and 1967. As the Department did not maintain

the original records or division wise data on preliminary notifications, audit

was confined to scrutiny of the 86 preliminary notifications produced by the

DFOs of the 12 audited divisions.

During scrutiny of records of the test checked divisions, it was revealed that

86 preliminary notifications involving 7.33 lakh hectare area out of 19.185

lakh hectare of protected forest of State were issued under proviso to section

29(3) of the Act, by the Government between 1952 and 1967. Further, Forest

Settlement Officers (FSO) were appointed during 1955 to 1967 for final

notifications. There was no time line fixed for final notification after issue of

preliminary notifications. However, not a single final notification (under

section 29 of the Act) has been issued (March 2018) in 65 years of issue of

preliminary notification by Government as necessary ground work for final

notification such as processes of demarcation of forest land, authentication of

80

“Provided that, if in the case of any forest land, or waste land, the State Government thinks

that such inquiry and record are necessary, but that they will occupy such length of time as

in the meantime to endanger the rights of Government, the State Government may,

pending such inquiry and record, declare such land to be a protected forest, but so as not to

abridge or affect any existing rights of individuals or communities.” 81

“(1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare the

provisions of this chapter (IV) applicable to any forest land or waste land which is not

included in a reserved forest but which is the property of Government, or over which the

Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of

which the Government is entitled; (2) The forest land and waste lands comprised in any

such notification shall be called a “protected forest”; (3) No such notification shall be

made unless the nature and extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or

over the forest land or waste land comprised therein have been inquired into the recorded

at a survey or settlement, or in such other manner as the State Government thinks

sufficient. Every such record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.”

Even after 65 years of

issue of preliminary

notifications, the State

Government has not

issued a single final

notification declaring

protected forest


48

maps, exclusion of non-forest lands, preparation of draft notification for

notifying forest and excluded areas were not completed or were abandoned

(1970) by the FSOs without assigning any reasons. Government did not make

any alternative arrangements to get these processes complete to issue final

notifications and the Department also did not initiate the process of even

appointing FSOs for final notifications, as the Department was not aware of

the complete details82

of all the preliminary notifications issued. The

Department confirmed (February 2018) that it did not have all original

notifications and demarcation maps due to a variety of reasons including

damage to the Record Room at Ranchi.

Absence of final notifications by the Forest Department deprived the Land

Revenue Department to maintain details of forest land in their records

(khatian, mutation registers etc.) besides keeping track of exact forest

boundaries within revenue plots. This led to coordination deficits between

these two Departments and resulted in encroachments in forest area, sale and

purchase of forest land, unauthorised use of forest land etc., as detailed in

paragraph 2.3.5 and discussed through case studies below.

Case Study 1

A preliminary notification was issued in December 1952 to declare an area of

82.18 hectare spread over 10 plots (Appendix-2.3.2) in three villages of Giridih

district as protected forest. In the preliminary notification, forest area under

each of these 10 plots with exact location was not mentioned. Cross

verification of records by Audit of these 10 plots with the records of Revenue

Department (Circle Office, Bengabad, Giridih) revealed that the total area

available in these 10 plots was 141.19 hectare. This indicates that these 10 plots

also include 58.89 hectare non-forest land. The FSO did not undertake survey

work to demarcate the forest area in these plots to submit the draft for issue of

final notification. Resultantly, the final notification was not issued and the

exact location of forest land could not be fixed. The Land Revenue Department

was therefore unable to maintain the details of forest land and their boundaries

and thus, the forest land in those plots are at risk of being subject to sale and

purchase.

Case Study 2

In village Bhawanidih under police station Chas, 28.62 hectare of notified83

(May 1958) forest land (presently under jurisdiction of Bokaro Forest Division)

was not demarcated (March 2018) even six decades after notification. These

forest lands were mutated (July 2003) to private persons by the Deputy

Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Chas based on a release order (1966) issued

by the FSO, Dhanbad and NOC84

issued (February 2001) by the DFO,

Dhanbad. On realising that mutation was prohibited on account of notified

protected forest land, the Department filed (October 2003) a revision petition

(in one case involving area of two acre) in the Court of Deputy Commissioner

(DC), Bokaro. The DC Bokaro rejected (June 2004) the petition stating that the

said land did not fall under the purview of protected forest land in view of

82

Total numbers of notifications issued, notification numbers, copies of notification etc. 83

Vide notification no. C/F-17014/58-1429R dated 24/05/1958 84

Letter no.-2375 dt.- 13/07/2000 and 3128, dt.-16/08/2000 addressed to CO, Chas and letter

no. 416 dt.02/02/2001 addressed to DCLR, Chas.


49

FSO’s release orders. The Department did not represent against the order

passed by the DC Bokaro. It was noticed that the private persons sold 27.58 out

of 28.62 hectare notified forest land in piecemeal to Sahara India Commercial

Corporation Limited (SICCL) between 2006 and 2008. Thus, the forest land

was used for non-forest purpose in violation of the Forest Conservation (FC)

Act, 1980.

Case Study 3

Ministry of Environment and Forest, (MoEF) gave environmental clearance

(February 2008) for setting up a 3.0 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant by Electro

Steel Limited (ESL) in 546.34 hectare non-forest land in 10 villages at

Chandankiyari block of Bokaro District. As per environmental clearance given

by GoI, forest land was not involved in the project. However, ESL, changed

(2008) the construction site by including three different villages in Chas Block

of Bokaro District. As a result, 89.39 hectare of notified85

and demarcated

forest land (presently under jurisdiction of Bokaro Forest Division) was

included in the project for which no permission was taken under the Act

(Appendix-2.3.3).

Based on information from DFO, Bokaro and PCCF Jharkhand, State

Government informed (May 2014) MOEF about the encroachments made by

ESL in forest land. GoI instructed (October 2014) the State Government to stop

operation of the plant in forest land on grounds of violation of FC Act.

However, the same has not been stopped (March 2018) by the DFO although

cases under BPLE Act were instituted against the encroachment. Thus, the

forest land remained encroached.

85

Vide Govt. of Bihar Notification no. C/F – 17014/58–1429 R dated 24/05/1958.


50

Imagery during 2008 of the site

Source: Google earth Imagery during 2017 of the site showing

factory

Case Study 4

In Pandedih, 30.45 hectare preliminary notified (1955) and demarcated forest

land (presently under jurisdiction of Giridih East Forest Division) were sold and

purchased by private persons between 2010 and 2011 on the basis of fake release

order (June 1963) using signature of FSO, Hazaribagh. DFO Giridih (East)

requested (June 2012) the DC, Giridih to cancel all the sale deeds on the ground

that the registration was done based on fake documents. The case is under

litigation in the High Court, Jharkhand.

Case Study 5

In Dhengura, 8.09 hectare of preliminary notified (1953) and demarcated

protected forest (presently under jurisdiction of Hazaribagh West Forest

Division) was sold and purchased (May 2013) by private persons. DFO,

Hazaribagh (West) requested (November 2013) the Circle Officer, Katkamsandi

for cancellation of the mutation. Registrar, Hazaribagh was also requested (June

2017) to cancel the sale deed of the aforesaid forest land by DFO, Hazaribagh.

Cancellation of the mutation has not been done (March 2018). This was due to

coordination deficit between the Department and Revenue Department which

had arisen because the DFO failed to protect forest boundaries and inform the

Revenue Department (Circle Officer) about exact forest land while the Circle

Officer/Registrar failed to act on the requests of the DFO. Thus, the forest land

was infringed.

Case study 6

In Chas, Bokaro, 166.48 acre land involving six demarcated plots (plot numbers

7358, 7360, 7562, 7923, 7925 and 7926) and four non-demarcated plots (plot

numbers 7768, 7788, 7790 and 7885) of Chas Circle were notified (May 1958)

as Protected Forest. However, as per records of Registry Office, Bokaro, 18.00

hectare of such land (Appendix-2.3.4) pertaining to these plots were sold

between September 2008 and June 2017 through 185 sale deeds. No action to

verify and evict persons from the above forest land was taken by the Division/

Department as of February 2018. Thus, the forest land remained in private

hands.


51

Audit observed that these irregularities could have been prevented had the

Department issued final notifications as per the Act and kept the Registrars

and Circle Offices informed of such notifications and demarcations.

In addition, it was also noticed that 3,576.36 hectare forest land in four86

test

checked divisions (Appendix-2.3.5) were shown as released i.e., excluded

from forest demarcation, without sufficient supporting documents such as

authenticated maps, draft notification for de-notification etc. as per

Government’s instructions. Thus, release of 3,576.36 hectare forest land

without supporting documents exposed the Department’s unpreparedness to

safe guard the forest land.

The Department inter alia informed Audit (February 2018) that efforts have

been made to free the encroached forest land by instituting cases under BPLE

Act and there is no direct link between final notification and encroachments.

The Department also stated that legally there was no bar on mutation where

FSO had released the land and no final notification had been issued with

respect to the lands specified in preliminary notifications.

The reply is not convincing as the Department replied (February 2018) to

Audit that it had been struggling to protect and conserve forests on the basis of

preliminary notifications, incomplete FSO orders and unauthenticated

demarcated maps. Further, release of forest lands by FSO have to be

confirmed by the Government following due process, which however, was not

done. Moreover, the contention that there is no direct link between

encroachments and final notifications proved wrong, as the showcased cases

in the report had clearly shown that encroachments have taken place in the

absence of final notifications as preliminary notifications did not have

sufficient details for the Revenue Department to act upon to check and prevent

illicit trade of forest land.

2.3.3.2 Demarcation of forest land

As per the Bihar Forest Rules, notified forest area should be demarcated and

boundary on the ground should match the demarcation made on the

cadastral87

map of the area. Further, Government instructions88

(May 1953)

also stipulate that maps of forest area should be duly authenticated by both the

DFO and the FSO. Instances of violations of the above provisions are

discussed below:

2.3.3.2 (i) Demarcation of preliminary notified forest land

The Department reported (February 2018) that out of 23.605 lakh hectare

recorded forest land in the State, it had demarcated 19.771 lakh hectare

(84 per cent) while 3.834 lakh hectare were not demarcated. In addition, the

Department also demarcated 0.847 lakh hectare as forest land without issuing

any notification under section 29 of the IFA, 1927.

Scrutiny of records in 11 out of 12 test checked divisions revealed that out of

7,32,669.68 hectare of preliminary notified land, 1,28,523.26 hectare land

86

1. Bokaro; 2. Dumka; 3. Jamshedpur and 4. Medninagar 87

A village-wise map showing plot-wise status of forests 88

Vide letter no. C/PF-1095/52-R dated 12/05/1953 of Secretary, Revenue Department,

Govt. of Bihar

In 11 test checked

divisions,

demarcation of

18 per cent of

preliminary notified

protected forest was

not completed


52

(18 per cent) was not demarcated as protected forest land. This was due to

non-completion of demarcation process as the FSOs, responsible for

undertaking these activities, abandoned (1970) the works without assigning

any reason. However, the Department did not take effective steps to resume

demarcation process of these forest land till March 2018 for which no reasons

were on record. This exposed the non-demarcated land to encroachment and

illegal occupation. Details are shown in the Table-2:

Table 2: Status of notification and demarcation of forest land

(in hectare)

Sl. No. Division Preliminary

notified area Demarcated

Percentage of D with

respect to C

Not

demarcated

C - D

Demarcated

but not

notified

Total

demarcated

area

D + G

A B C D E F G H

1 Bokaro 60,678.68 50,290.78 82.88 10,387.90 7,164.99 57,455.77

2 Buffer Area, PTR 8,819.34 8,491.88 96.29 327.46 0 8,491.88

3 Core Area, PTR 23,625.59 20,743.69 87.80 2,881.90 11,476.13 32,219.82

4 Dumka 24,876.92 23,641.48 95.03 1,235.44 1,105.14 24,746.62

5 Giridih (East) 1,12,977.86 98,276.52 86.99 14,701.34 4,306.57 1,02,583.09

6 Hazaribagh(West) 1,36,093.16 1,27,893.48 93.97 8,199.68 5,537.65 1,33,431.13

7 Jamshedpur 45,388.60 36,259.85 79.89 9,128.75 3,515.82 39,775.67

8 Kolhan 19,714.98 11,406.09 57.85 8,308.89 0 11,406.09

9 Medninagar 1,61,495.32 1,57,518.00 97.54 3,977.32 1,499.11 1,59,017.11

10 Porahat 15,818.23 15,650.79 98.94 167.44 70.07 15,720.86

11 Simdega 1,23,181.00 53,973.86 43.82 69,207.14 1,618.09 55,591.95

Total 7,32,669.68 6,04,146.42 82.46 1,28,523.26 36,293.57 6,40,439.99

(Sources: Furnished by DFOs of sampled divisions )

The Department inter alia stated (February 2018) that 20.618 lakh hectare of

forest area has been demarcated on maps.

The reply of the Department is not based on facts as demarcated area of

20.618 lakh hectare also included 0.847 lakh hectare demarcated area which

has not been notified as forest area. Thus, only 19.771 lakh hectare (84 per cent) of notified forest land was demarcated against recorded forest area of

23.605 lakh hectare.

2.3.3.2 (ii) Demarcation of forest land without notification

In nine89

out of 12 test checked divisions, 36,293.57 hectare land (Table-2) although demarcated between 1955 and 1967 as forest land, were not

notified90

(March 2018) as the divisions did not have any details about the

status of acquisition of these lands. Resultantly, final notifications to declare

these lands as protected forest by Government were not issued. This failure

has put to risk years of pain staking work of survey, identification and

demarcation of forest lands without reaching logical end and may compound

further litigation.

The Department accepted (February 2018) the facts and stated that 84,700

hectare are demarcated areas that have not been notified under the IFA, 1927.

These extra lands were not included in the notifications issued under proviso

89

Bokaro; Core Area, PTR; Dumka; Giridih (East); Hazaribagh (West); Jamshedpur;

Medninagar; Porahat and Simdega. 90

Forest area demarcated by Department beyond the area notified vide preliminary

notification

84,700 hectare

were demarcated

as forest but were

not notified under

IFA, 1927 till

March 2018


53

of Section 29 of IFA, 1927 as these areas have different types of land tenure

laws/regulations with different types of land records which need to be

examined (since 1970) by the Department. The Department further stated that

a Committee has been constituted (November 2015) by the Government to

look into these issues. In this connection it is to be stated that the Terms of

Reference stipulate a time frame of three months for submission of final

report, which is awaited even two and a half years after constitution of the

Committee.

It is therefore evident that though these lands were demarcated between 1955

and 1967 as forest land, and though, since then, more than 50 to 60 years have

gone by, yet the Government had not issued (March 2018) any notification

under the Act to declare these lands as protected forests. The inordinate delay

in issuing notification on the pretext of examination of the nature of land, their

records etc., is not convincing.

2.3.3.2 (iii) Unauthenticated demarcation of forest land

In six91

out of 12 test checked divisions, Audit noticed that maps of 747

villages (out of 3,578 villages) involving an area of 90,598.62 hectare were

not authenticated by the concerned FSOs and DFOs for which no reason could

be cited by the Department except that the FSOs abruptly stopped (1970) their

work. Further, in two (Bokaro and Simdega) divisions, maps of 21 villages

involving area of 8,332.73 hectare were not available. Details are given below

in Table 3:

Table: 3 Status of authenticated maps (In hectare)

Division

Total No. of

Village/

Mouja (as

per record of

divisions)

Area

Maps of

demarcated

forest mouja/

villages not

available

Maps of demarcated forest villages not authenticated

No. Area

involved

Signature

of FSO not

available

Signature

of DFO

not

available

Signature of

both FSO

and DFO not

available

Total Area involved

Bokaro 383 57,455.77 19 8,313.20 2 5 99 106 12,202.87

Dumka 529 24,746.62 - - - - 45 45 1,660.82

Hazaribagh

(west) 610 1,33,431.13 - - 16 158 89 263 47,328.23

Jamshedpur 914 39,775.67 - - - 10 67 77 3,762.25

Medininagar 780 1,59,017.11 - - 16 1 61 78 14,514.27

Simdega 362 55,591.95 2 9.53 - - 178 178 11,130.18

Total 3,578 4,70,018.25 21 8,322.73 34 174 539 747 90,598.62

((Sources: sampled divisions data)

As indicated in the table above, maps of 174 out of 747 villages were

authenticated only by the FSO, 34 villages only by the DFOs, while 539

village maps were not authenticated by either of them. In the absence of

authentication of maps of 573 villages by the FSOs, demarcation of forest land

on cadastral maps remained incomplete (March 2018).

The Department stated (February 2018) inter alia that, some maps have not

been signed by the FSOs and DFOs. The Committee under the RCCF/CCF has

91

1.Bokaro; 2. Dumka; 3. Hazaribagh (West); 4. Jamshedpur; 5. Medininagar and 6. Simdega.

In six test

checked divisions,

maps of 747

villages were not

authenticated

either/both by

FSO and DFO


54

been examining (since November 2015) these issues and further action would

be taken on the matter. Further action is awaited (March 2018).

The reply is not convincing as around 21 per cent maps were not signed by the

FSOs and DFOs as on March 2018 in the six sampled divisions. Further, the

committee entrusted (November 2015) by Government to look into these

issues has not submitted its report (April 2018) in more than two and half

years of its constitution against the submission timeline of three months.

2.3.3.2 (iv) Demarcation Register

Demarcation Register (DR), in which details of all the plots in the forest as per

demarcated maps are mentioned, is an important document. It should be duly

updated as and when any change occurs and authenticated by DFO.

Audit noticed that DR was not available in two (Bokaro and Saranda) out of

12 test-checked divisions, while in nine test-checked divisions92

, the registers,

though available, were not authenticated by the DFO since inception.

The Department stated (February 2018) inter alia that, prior to FC Act 1980, it

was the practise to release forest lands to various user agencies simply by

means of executive orders. However, after introduction of 1980 Act, forest

lands are merely diverted for non-forestry use and the status of the diverted

land doesn’t change. Thus, post-1980, the DR has become a static document.

The reply of Department is not convincing as post-1980, the DR requires

updating for notification of non-forest land received from user agencies for

compensatory afforestation as forest land. Thus, DR cannot be construed as

static or obsolete and must be authenticated for safeguarding the forest.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate immediate action to appoint FSOs so that

final notifications can be issued without further delay. The Department

should also share details of forest land with the Land Revenue

Department to prevent the unauthorised sale and purchase of forest land.

2.3.3.3 Compensatory afforestation

As per guidelines issued by GoI under the Forest Conservation (FC) Act 1980,

non-forest land identified for the purpose of compensatory afforestation (CA)

is to be notified as reserved/protected forest by the Department so that

plantations could be raised and maintained permanently on such lands. For

execution of afforestation activities, working plan is to be drawn for

conservation and protection of forest areas.

Scrutiny of records of seven93

out of 12 test checked divisions revealed that

760.41 hectare (Appendix-2.3.6) of non-forest land were transferred for CA by

13 user agencies (six cases were pending for more than five years) between

1993 and 2015.

Audit noticed that these non-forest lands were not notified as forest and was

not included in the working plan for afforestation on the ground that the

92

1. Buffer Area, PTR; 2. Core Area, PTR; 3. Dumka; 4. Giridih (East); 5. Hazaribgh

(West); 6. Kolhan; 7. Medninagar 8. Porahat and 9. Simdega. 93

1. Buffer Area, PTR; 2. Core Area, PTR; 3. Giridih (East); 4. Hazaribagh (West);

5. Jamshedpur; 6. Porahat and 7. Simdega

In seven test checked

divisions, 760.41

hectare of non-forest

land transferred for

compensatory

afforestation was not

notified as

reserved/protected

forest


55

proposals for notification forwarded (between 1993 and 2016) by the DFOs of

the divisions were pending for approval with the Department (PCCF/RCCF)

for more than three to 24 years awaiting rectifications in the draft notification.

The Department inter alia stated (February 2018) that these proposals required

rectification and special drive has been launched for the same which will be

done as expeditiously as possible. The fact remains that the proposals were

pending for more than three to 24 years and the Department could not justify

the failure to accord approval for notification in these years.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate immediate action to accord approval for

notification of non-forest land transferred for Compensatory

Afforestation by user agencies.

2.3.3.4 Notification for setting up of Sanctuaries

To declare an area as Sanctuary, State Government has to issue final

notification under section 26A of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972

after inquiry and disposal of all claims made in relation to any land in that

area for which preliminary notification showing intention to declare such

area as sanctuary has been issued under section 18 of WPA, 1972. No

person shall destroy, exploit or remove any wild life including forest produce

from sanctuary as per section 29 of WPA, 1972, which came into effect after

issue of notification under section 18 of WPA, 1972. The Government has to

make alternative arrangements required for making available fuel, fodder and

other forest produce to the affected right holder as per Government records

and as determined by the Collector.

Betla National Park (22,632.91 hect.) Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary (6,325.58 hect)

Scrutiny of the records of Core Area, Palamu Tiger Reserve (PTR) Division

revealed that preliminary notifications94

(under section 18 of WPA, 1972) for

Palamu Wildlife (including Betla National Park) Sanctuary (97,927.19

hectare) and Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary (6,325.58 hectare) were issued in

June and July, 1976. However, final notification (under section 26 A of WPA,

1972) of the sanctuaries was not issued by the Department for which no

reasons were on the record.

Scrutiny further revealed that DC, Palamu and DC, Garhwa requested (July

and August 1998 respectively) the Department to make alternative

arrangements for fuel, fodder and other forest produce for 30 years to 7,826

94

vide S.O. no.1224 Dated 17/07/1976 and S.O.no.1062 dated 23/06/1976


56

affected right holders’ families in Palamu Wildlife Sanctuary which required

` 120.16 crore. However, the Department did not take initiative in this regard

to arrange and provide any funds till March 2018 for reasons not on record.

Resultantly, arrangements for alternative livelihood of affected right holders

were not ensured and thus, final notifications of these lands as sanctuary under

the aforesaid provisions of the Act were not issued.

The Department inter alia stated (February, 2018) that it is ascertaining the

details of proceedings undertaken by the collectors so appointed as per

provisions of WPA, 1972 and reassessing the situation. Fact remains that the

Department did not do this in 41 years since issue of preliminary notification.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate immediate action to provide funds for

making arrangements for alternative livelihood to the affected right

holders in a time bound manner so that final notifications of the

concerned sanctuaries can be issued.

2.3.4 Discrepancy in the area of recorded forest land

As per India State of Forest Reports, 2001 and 2017 published by Forest

Survey of India (FSI), the recorded forest in the State was 23.605 lakh hectare

since 2001-02 to 2016-17. However, the compiled figures of recorded forest

areas of all territorial divisions in the State was 23.605 lakh hectare in 2001-02

and 22.794 lakh hectare (Appendix-2.3.7) during 2014-15. Thus, there was

discrepancy of 0.811 lakh hectare between the FSI figures and that compiled

by the department from divisional records in 2014-15. When compared with

the figures of recorded forest furnished (February 2018) by the Department to

Audit, by compiling the figures maintained by the forest divisions, the

discrepancy was 1.03795

lakh hectare. However, the Department did not take

the initiative to reconcile the differences to prevent uploading of unrealistic

statistics in public domain through FSI for failing to maintain information

regarding total number of notifications issued.

Recommendation

The Department should take immediate steps to reconcile the

discrepancy of 1.037 lakh hectare of recorded forest land appearing in

FSI Report and divisional records in a time bound manner.

2.3.5 Eviction in encroached forest land

2.3.5.1 Trend of encroachment over the years

The Bihar Forest (Amendment) Act, 1990 (as adopted by GoJ) provides that

encroachment of forest land shall be treated as cognisable and non-bailable

offences. If any forest officer not below the rank of DFO has reasons to

believe that forest land has been encroached, the officer may evict the

encroachers by using all powers conferred as a magistrate under the Bihar

Public Land Encroachment (BPLE) Act, 1956. Under the Act, the officer has

95

Department reported that notified forest area is 22.568 lakh hectare, demarcated but non-

notified area is 0.847 lakh hectare and 0.283 lakh hectare is private protected forest and

lands received from other agencies. However, recoded forest consist only notified forest.

Thus there is discrepancy of 1.037 (23.605 – 22.568) lakh hectare.

There was

discrepancy of

1.037 lakh hectare

of the recorded

forest land

between the FSI

Report and those

maintained by the

Department


57

to issue notices to the offender to appear on a date and pass an order for

eviction. For the purpose, he may use such force as is necessary. GoI had also

issued (May 2002) instructions (in light of the Supreme Court order dated

November 2001) to all States to get the encroachers evicted from forest land in

a time bound manner, but not later than 30 September 2002.

(Source: Forest Department)

Information gathered from the Department showed that forest land under

encroachment dipped to 25,181 hectare in 2017 on account of various efforts

taken by the Department such as settlement under BPLE Act, afforestation and

boundaries marking of forest areas during 2016-17.

The Department inter alia stated (February 2018) that 9,013 cases under IFA,

1927 and 4,323 cases under BPLE Act, 1956 have been instituted against the

accused/offenders and as a result 1,827.78 hectare forest land have already

been freed till October 2017. Thereafter, total 179.20 hectare land have been

freed of encroachment during the months of November and December 2017.

The Department has been taking strong action despite the shortage of field

staff and the recent induction (2017) of Forest guards in the Department after a

long gap has improved the situation.

Fact remains that the Department could not remove encroachments from

25,181 hectare forest land in more than 15 years of deadline set by GoI while

no documentary evidence was produced to Audit in support of claim of freeing

encroachment from 2,006.98 (1,827.78 plus 179.20) hectare forest land.

Instances of encroachments are discussed below:

2.3.5.1 (i) Encroachment due to non-utilisation of forest land transferred

to user agencies for non-forest purposes

As per FC Act 1980, cases where specific orders for de-reservation or

diversion of forest areas for approval of any project were issued by the State

Government prior to October 1980, reference to the Central Government was

not required. However, where administrative approval for the project was

issued without specific orders regarding de-reservation and/or diversion of

forest lands, prior approval of the Central Government is necessary. Further,

transfer of land prior to 1980 required Deed of Conveyance between the

Department and the User agency.

25,049

28,410

25,181

23000

24000

25000

26000

27000

28000

29000

2005 2016 2017

Department could

not free 25,181

hectare of

encroached forest

land as on March

2017 which

continued till March

2018


58

Scrutiny of the records of Bokaro Forest Division revealed that 639.49 hectare

forest land was handed over (1962) to a user agency (M/s Hindustan Steel

Ltd.) without execution of Deed of Conveyance for transfer of the land. The

user agency utilised 315.04 hectare forest land for its Steel Plant and

Township project while the remaining 324.45 hectare forest land was not used.

The agency requested (October 2007) for Deed of Conveyance for 315.04

hectare forest land only. This resulted in unauthorised occupation of 324.45

hectare forest land by the user agency as neither transfer of land to the user

agency was finalised till 2007 nor the prior approval of GoI under FC Act,

1980 were obtained. However, the Department did not take any action to

resume these lands till date (March 2018). Of this, 33.18 hectare land valued

` 10.54 crore96

had been mutated by Circle Officer (CO), Chas in favour of

private persons based on fabricated documents97

. DFO, Bokaro requested

(between July 2016 and December 2016) CO, Chas and DC, Bokaro to cancel

these mutations. DC, Bokaro initiated action (August 2016) against the

concerned erring officials and for the cancellation of the mutation, which is

under process (March 2018).

Thus, non-utilisation of the diverted forest land for the specific purpose is also

one of the causes of encroachments.

The Department inter alia stated (February 2018) that prior to the 1980 Act,

the practice was to release forest lands permanently to the user agencies. It is

only after introduction of FC Act, 1980, the forest lands are merely diverted

for non-forest use. As regards the request of the user agency to return the

released forest land to the Forest Department which was prior to 1980, the

Department stated that it would not have been lawful to resume the released

lands only on the basis of non-utilisation by the user agency.

The reply of Department is not acceptable as transfer of land to the user

agency for non-forest purpose was not finalised till 2007 and hence, it should

have been regularised as per Section 2 of FC Act, 1980 with the approval of

GoI but was not done. Further, no reply on irregular mutation was furnished

by the Department.

Recommendation

The Department should initiate immediate action to regularise the

transfer of forest land to the user agency for non-forest purpose as per FC

Act, 1980 and resume the unutilised forest land from the user agency.

2.3.5.1 (ii) Encroachment due to unauthorised utilisation of forest land for

non-forest purposes

According to the FC Act, 1980, prior permission of the Ministry of Forest and

Environment (MoEF), Government of India (GoI) is essential for diversion of

forest land for non-forest purposes. The user agencies were required to comply

with the conditions imposed by GoI. Further, in view of the verdict98

(February 2000) of the Supreme Court, GoI advised99

(May 2001) all the

96

On the basis of current minimum government rate@ `12855 per decimal. 97

On the basis of fabricated Land certificate no. 2091 (1932/33) fabricated entry made in the

Register II (Mutation Register) in concerned Circle Office. 98

13/11/2000 in WP no. 337/95 and dt.14/02/2000, in WP no. 202/95. 99

vide letter no. 11-9/98-FC dated 04/05/2001.


59

State Governments and Union Territories (UT) to restrain diversion of forest

land from/of National Parks and Sanctuaries under the FC Act without prior

permission of the Supreme Court.

Scrutiny of records of seven100

out of 12 forest divisions revealed that eight

projects (Appendix-2.3.8) were executed from 1982 to 2014 involving over

2,689.51 hectare forest land which included 330.50 hectare Sanctuary (Palamu

Tiger Reserve) by the user agencies. However, the projects were taken up

without actual handing over of forest land by the Department, without

obtaining prior permission of MoEF and Supreme Court (in case of Sanctuary

area). Thus, the Act and advisory of GoI were not adhered to while executing

the projects.

The Department inter alia stated (February 2018) that in these projects, it is

the responsibility of the user agencies to comply with the provisions of the FC

Act, 1980, and not the Forest Department.

The reply is not acceptable as the Forest Department is responsible for

ensuring that the user agencies comply with the provisions of the FC Act 1980

prior to execution of the projects involving use of forest land for non-forest

purposes. Moreover, the Department had forwarded the proposals of forest

clearance submitted by the user agencies for use of forest land for non-forest

purposes to GoI for approval. Hence, the Department cannot disown its

responsibility on the user agencies failing to adhere the FC Act.

2.3.6 Conclusion

Management of Forest Land in Jharkhand is far from satisfactory as the State

Government could not bridge the acute shortage in cutting edge field officials

of the Forest Department. As at March 2018, the vacancy for the posts of

‘Forester’, ‘Forest Guard’ and ‘Amin’ were to the extent of 73 per cent, 43 per cent and 78 per cent respectively. This significantly affected in guarding the

forest boundaries, maintenance of forest land records and maps etc.

Even after 65 years of issue of preliminary notifications, the State Government

has not issued a single final notification for 19.185 lakh hectare protected

forest of the State on account of failure of Department to authenticate the

maps, issue draft de- notification of excluded areas etc.

Absence of final notifications and coordination deficits between the Forest and

Land Revenue Departments resulted in illicit sale and purchase of forest land

and encroachments over 25,181 hectare of forest land as on March 2017.

In the seven out of 12 test checked forest divisions, 760.41 hectare non-forest

land transferred for compensatory afforestation was not notified as

reserved/protected forest as necessary rectification of proposals for draft

notifications by concerned Divisional Forest Officers/Deputy Commissioners

were not made.

The Department has not issued final notification of the Palamu Wildlife (Betla

National Park) Sanctuary and Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary though preliminary

100

1.Bokaro; 2. Core Area, PTR; 3. Dumka; 4. Hazaribagh (West); 5. Jamshedpur; 6. Porahat

and 7. Simdega.

In seven test

checked divisions,

there was

encroachment and

unauthorised

utilisation of

2,689.51 hectare

forest land.


60

notifications for the sanctuaries were issued in June and July 1976

respectively.

There was discrepancy of 1.037 lakh hectare recorded forest land between

Department’s reported figures to FSI and the figures reported to Audit.

However, Government did not reconcile the differences to prevent uploading

of unrealistic statistics in public domain through FSI.


61

2.4 Audit Paragraphs

Audit of Government Departments and their field formations brought out

several instances of lapses in management of resources and failures in the

observance of the norms of regularity, propriety and economy. These have

been presented in the succeeding paragraphs under broad objective heads.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

2.4.1 Wasteful expenditure and cost escalation

Inordinate delays in terminating the contracts and resuming the balance

works, besides failure to cover the water bound macadam surface

with bituminous layer before allowing traffic, led to cost escalation of

`̀̀̀ 3.12 crore, non-recovery of liquidated damages of `̀̀̀ 2.62 crore and

wasteful expenditure of `̀̀̀ 93 lakh

As per clause 52.2 (a) of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) for Pradhan

Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY), if the contractor stops work for 28 days

when no stoppage of work is shown on the current work programme and the

stoppage has not been authorised by the engineer, it will constitute a

fundamental breach of contract. Further, clause 4.8.2 of the Indian Road

Congress (IRC:19-2005) stipulates that water bound macadam (WBM) layer is

to be topped with bituminous layer immediately upon drying and before

allowing traffic over it.

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India (GoI) approved (August

2008) the projects of phase six under the PMGSY for the construction of rural

roads in the State of Jharkhand. Chief Engineer (CE), Jharkhand State Rural

Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) granted (November 2008) technical

sanctions (TS) for ` 11.87 crore for construction of eight roads in four

packages in Manika block of Latehar district. Agreements were executed

(May 2009 to January 2010) for ` 9.94 crore by Executive Engineer (EE),

Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs) Works Division,

Latehar with three contractors101

for completion of the works between May

2010 and January 2011. Details are given in Appendix-2.4.1.

Scrutiny of records of the EE, Rural Works Affairs (RWA), Works Division,

Latehar revealed that the contractors executed works up to WBM level102

valued at ` 4.41 crore103

in all the packages and thereafter stopped

(December 2011 to June 2013) further works without assigning reasons.

However, the EE did not take action to ensure coverage of the WBM layers

with bituminous surface by the contractors immediately upon drying and

before allowing traffic over it as per the IRC provision or rescind the

contracts after 28 days of stoppage of works as per provisions of the SBD and

getting these done by other contractors at the risk and cost of the defaulting

101

Package No. 1401: Abhinandan Prasad, Package No. 1402: M/s Maa Parmeshwari

Construction, Package No. 1404: Abhinandan Prasad, Package No. 1405: M/s N.S.

Construction 102

Five roads upto WBM Gr. II level and three roads upto Gr. III level 103

Package no. 1401: ` 0.91 crore, Package no.1402: `0.79 crore, Package no. 1404: `1.30

crore, Package no. 1405: `1.41 crore.


62

contractors. The EE took 14 to 45 months to rescind the contracts (March

2013 to September 2016) from the date of stoppage of the works on the

pretext of reminding the contractors to execute the works between December

2012 and July 2016. In between, traffic was allowed on these WBM roads

and along with onslaught of weather, works valued at ` 93 lakh were found

damaged beyond recognition by the EE during final measurement (September

2016) of the works. The EE imposed (September 2016) penalty of ` 3.23

crore on the contractors and recovered ` 61.43 lakh (security deposit- ` 46.23

lakh and forfeiture of earnest money deposit- ` 15.20 lakh). Thus, penalty

valued at ` 2.62 crore could not be recovered from the contractors. The EE

lodged (April 2017) certificate case against the contractors with District

Certificate Officer Latehar for recovery of balance amount. Further action

was awaited (May 2018).

Meanwhile, CE, JSRRDA approved (September 2016 and March 2018)

revised estimates (RE) of the residual works of the four packages for ` 12.86

crore104

after delays of 38 to 61 months from the date of stoppage of these

works. The balance works of three105

out of four packages were tendered

(February 2017 and March 2017) for ` 7.49 crore106

which increased their

cost by ` 3.12 crore (` 9.83 crore107

– ` 6.71 crore). The fourth package has

not been tendered (June 2018).

Thus, failure of the EE to cover up the WBM surface by bituminous topping

before allowing traffic besides inordinate delays to terminate the contracts

and get the balance works done at the risk and cost of the defaulting

contractors led to cost escalation of ` 3.12 crore, non-recovery of penalty of

` 2.62 crore and wasteful expenditure of ` 93 lakh on the damaged road

works.

The matter was also reported to the Rural Development Department (July

2017) followed by reminders between September 2017 and November 2017.

No reply has been received (June 2018).


2.4.2 Undue benefit to the contractor

Undue benefit of `̀̀̀ 3.60 crore to the contractor due to three ineligible time

extensions with benefits of price escalation, granted by Chief Engineer

National Highways Ranchi despite contractor’s persistent failure to meet

the time schedule of the work

According to clause 47.1 (a) of the conditions of contract of Standard Bidding

Document (SBD) agreement, price adjustment shall not apply to work carried

out beyond the stipulated time for reasons attributable to the contractor. The

Executive Engineer (EE), National Highway (NH) Division, Hazaribag

104

Package no. 1401: ` 2.34 crore, Package no.1402: ` 1.68 crore Package no. 1404:

` 4.54 crore and Package no. 1405: ` 4.30 crore 105

Package no. 1401, 1402 and 1405 106

Package no. 1401: ` 2.10 crore, Package no.1402: ` 1.51 crore and Package no. 1405:

` 3.88 crore 107

Excluding fourth package


63

entered into (February 2012) an agreement valued at ` 19.63 crore with a

contractor for widening of 17.80 kms (from km 11.20 to 30) of NH 99

(Dhobhi-Chatra-Chandwa Road) for completion of the work in 21 months

(November 2013).

Audit observed (August 2016) that the Principal Secretary, Road Construction

Department noticed in three review meetings (January 2014, April 2014 and

January 2015) that the progress of work by the contractor was unsatisfactory

and directed the EE to recommend debarment of the contractor. On the EE’s

recommendation (April 2014), the contractor was debarred (April 2014) from

future works of the Department by the Engineer-in-Chief, RCD.

Contrary to the observations of the Principal Secretary, the Chief Engineer

(CE), National Highways Ranchi granted three time extensions (February

2014, November 2014 and August 2015) to the contractor and extended the

intended date of completion of the work by 23 months (first up to June 2014

and then up to March 2015 and finally up to October 2015) on the request of

the contractor on grounds of heavy rain, cold weather, election, naxal

disturbances, lack of funds and revision in Detailed Project Report (DPR). The

contractor completed the work in the extended time period in October 2015

and took payment of ` 22.92 crore. The payment included price adjustment of

` 4.39 crore of which ` 3.73 crore was paid for the extended period.

Audit cross verified the grounds on which time extensions had been sought,

with the records of the district (Chatra) survey and police reports (for naxal

exigencies), Indian Meteorology Department, Ranchi (for rainfall and

temperature), RCD (for DPR and funds). The findings are as detailed in the

table below:

108

One mm rainfall denotes storage of water of height 1mm in an area of one square metre 109

As per 4.1 of IRC norms, the minimum temperature for laying WBM road should be 16

degree celsius

Nature of

disruption

Time

extension

allowed

Actual

days

affected

Details Authority

Rainfall

23

months

05 13.2 mm rainfall108 on 1 March 2015, 3.0 mm on 16

March 2015, 1 mm on 6 April 2015, 8 mm on 15 April

2015 and 2 mm on 24 April 2015

IMD Ranchi

Naxal bandi

and

disturbances

32 17 December 2012 to 27 February 2014 SHO, Police

Station Chatra

Weather109 76 Jan-2015- Max-23.6ºC; Min-10.7ºC

Feb-2015- Max-27.5ºC; Min-14.1ºC

18 Mar-2015- Max-32.2ºC; Min-17.0ºC

Apr-2015- Max-36.4ºC; Min-19.6ºC

IMD Ranchi

Elections 44 Parliamentary elections- 10 April, 17 April and 24 April

2014 (maximum disturbance including counting-20 days)

State Assembly elections- 25 November, 2 December, 9

December, 14 December and 20 December 2014

(maximum disturbance including counting- 24 days)

Funds Nil During Nov 2014 to Apr 2015, the contractor received

` 3.13 crore vide 17th to 20th RA bill. Hence, funds were

available

Department

(RCD)

DPR

revision

240 01 May 2012 to 26 December 2016 Department

(RCD)

Total 397 (13 months)


64

As may be seen, there was a maximum disturbance of 13 months due to the

above factors. However, 21 months were already provided for completion of

work considering naxal problem and other exigencies against 12.5 months to

be allowed110

in general for widening and strengthening of road up to 30 kms.

Hence, the contractor was not eligible for any additional relief for the above

exigencies.

Thus, grant of time extension with price adjustment of 23 months to the

contractor by the CE on unsubstantiated grounds resulted in undue benefit of

` 5.69 crore which included price escalation of ` 3.73 crore and non-recovery

of liquidated damages of ` 1.96 crore (10 per cent of initial contract value at

the rate of ` 98,000 per day of delay subject to maximum up to ` 1.96 crore).

Even if time extension of 13 months were allowed, the contractor was still

paid additional price escalation of ` 1.64 crore for additional 10 months (23

months minus 13 months) and total undue benefit of ` 3.60 crore (including

liquidated damages of ` 1.96 crore).

The CE, NH, Jharkhand stated (December 2017) that due to work site in naxal

affected areas besides naxal disturbances, special view was taken for time

extension. The reply is not acceptable as the contractor was held responsible

for slow progress of work by the Principal Secretary and this had delayed

completion of the work.

The matter was reported to the Road Construction Department in July 2017

followed by reminders between August 2017 and November 2017; reply had

not been received (June 2018).

HOME (POLICE), JAIL AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT

2.4.3 Non-realisation of amount

Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi deputed police guards to private

persons at State Government expense in violation of orders, resulting in

non-realisation of `̀̀̀ 14.11 crore

According to the circular issued (March 2003) by the Home Department,

Government of Jharkhand, if a police guard is deputed to a non-government

person, the financial burden of such deployment would be borne by the person

concerned. The financial burden would include pay and daily allowance of the

police guards so deputed. However, if such deputation is in public interest then

the expenditure may be borne by the State Government on recommendation of

Home Commissioner/Secretary. It also envisages formation of three tier

committees111

at district, division and State levels to decide and periodically

review such deputation.

110

Vide RCD order no. 4319 (S) dated 09/08/2007 111

The district level security committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner would meet

monthly and decide the deputation on the basis of threat perception involved. The division

level committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner would meet bi-monthly and can

review the work of district level committees. The State level committee headed by the

Home Secretary would meet quarterly and review the work of districts and divisions level

committees.


65

Scrutiny (June 2016) of records of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP),

Ranchi and further information collected in November 2017 revealed that 116

police personnel (Head Constables and Constables) were deputed (between

March 2009 and March 2018) as police guards to 97 Private Persons (11

builders, 26 businessmen, 5 media persons, 18 politicians, 7 doctors, 3

college/school Principals and 27 others) (Appendix-2.4.2) by the order of SSP

Ranchi on the recommendation of district level security committee under

chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner (DC), Ranchi who intimated (between

September 2012 and June 2013) the Home Secretary and other higher

authorities about such deployment. However, there was no recommendation of

the Home Secretary that the deputations were in public interest and the

expenditure of these deputed police personnel would be borne by the State

Government for any of the cases. Resultantly, the cost of deployment of police

guards was to be borne by the private persons. This was also instructed to SSP,

Ranchi by the district level security committee between September 2012 and

June 2013 and divisional level committee in February 2015. However, SSP,

Ranchi did not initiate any action to recover the admissible cost from private

persons to whom police guards were provided.

Taking into account the salary and daily allowance of the 116 deputed police

personnel, Audit worked out the minimum realisable cost as ` 14.11 crore112

for the period from March 2009 to October 2017. This resulted in non-

realisation of ` 14.11 crore by the SSP, Ranchi towards minimum cost of

deployment of police guards to private persons in disregard to the circular of

Home Department.

The matter was referred to the Home Department in July 2017 and reminded

between September 2017 and February 2018; reply had not been received

(June 2018).

2.4.4 Non-realisation of Government dues

Continuing deployment of Special Auxiliary Police by IG Operations

despite non-payment of deployment charges by the user agency resulted

in non-recovery of `̀̀̀ 5.48 crore

The Home Department, Government of Jharkhand created (June 2008) two

battalions of Special Auxiliary Police (SAP) comprising of retired defence

personnel on contract basis, and ordered (June 2009) that SAP personnel could

be deployed for security of industries on demand and on payment.

Essar Power (Jharkhand) Limited Ranchi (user agency) requested (between

August 2010 and December 2010) Inspector General of Police (IG)

(Operation) to deploy SAP for security of a proposed plant site of the

company at Chandwa in Latehar district. The deployment was requested

112

The guards were deployed from 1999. The State was created in November 2000. Recovery

was to be made from March 2003 as per circular 1374 dated 11/03/2003, but computerised

pay and salary details are available only from March 2009, and therefore calculation was

done from March 2009 onwards. The guards are attached to the concerned persons

continuously but the same guard was not attached continuously. So recoverable calculation

is based on minimum pay of present guard. The Department may calculate actual amount

and recover accordingly.


66

initially for a period of five years113

subject to review thereafter by the

Department against payment of deployment of ` 15.64 lakh per month.

Based on orders of Director General and Inspector General of Police, IG

(Operations) instructed (December 2010) the Commandant, SAP-1 to depute a

company of SAP on the plant site from January 2011. The order, however, did

not specify the period of deployment and no formal contract was executed

with the user agency. As a result, Commandant, SAP-1 continued to deploy

the company of SAP until IG (Operations) withdrew it in May 2018.

Scrutiny (February 2017 and July 2017) of records of the Commandant,

SAP-1, Ranchi and further information gathered from the IG (Operations)

revealed that the user agency paid deployment charges for 49 months from

January 2011 to January 2015 and stopped payments from February 2015

onwards even though it was committed to pay deployment cost up to

December 2015. However, at the instance (July 2017) of Audit the user

agency deposited (August 2017, November 2017 and May 2018) ` 78.20 lakh

as deployment charges for the period from February 2015 to June 2015.

Resultantly, deployment charges worth ` 93.84 lakh for the committed period

of July 2015 to December 2015 and ` 4.54 crore114

for the period January

2016 to May 2018 could not be recovered.

Although IG, Operation reported (July 2017) to Audit that legal action would

be initiated against the agency if it does not clear the dues, legal action for

recovery has not been initiated (June 2018) after withdrawal of SAP.

Thus, continuing with the deployment of SAP despite non-payment of the

deployment charges by the user agency not only violated the instructions of

the Home Department but also resulted in non-recovery of ` 5.48 crore

(` 0.94 crore + ` 4.54 crore) from the user agency.

The matter was reported to the Home Department in July 2017 followed by

reminders between September 2017 and November 2017 but no reply had

been received (June 2018).

HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION & FAMILY WELFARE

2.4.5 Unproductive and unfruitful expenditure

Failure of the Departments to provide funds, create posts, purchase

equipment and ensure monitoring of the works led to unproductive and

unfruitful expenditure of `̀̀̀ 11.30 crore on five incomplete and non-

functional healthcare facilities

Construction of five healthcare facilities115

(Appendix-2.4.3) were

administratively approved (AA) for ` 13.36 crore between January 2008 and

113

Three years of project period and two years of initial operation period 114

` 15.64 lakh * 29 months=` 453.56 lakh 115

Community Health Centre (CHC) at Dubrajpur in Tundi block of Dhanbad district,

Upgradation of Primary Health Centre (PHC) to CHC at Kudu, Lohardaga, Construction,

electrification, water supply and sanitation installation along with residential quarters at

Pesrar, Lohardaga, Construction of the State Ayurvedic Medical college and Hosptial

(SAMCH) at Chaibasa and Construction of Food and Drug Laboratory Building at Dumka.


67

March 2013 by Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare

Department (Department) and technically sanctioned (TS) for ` 14.04 crore

between December 2007 and December 2012 by the Chief Engineers (CE) of

the executing Departments116

.

Audit observed that two of the five healthcare facilities were completed

between November 2014 and April 2015 after incurring expenditure of ` 5.29

crore. The remaining three healthcare facilities could not be completed as of

March 2018 despite expenditure of ` 6.01 crore due to failure of the Health

Department to provide funds.

The completed healthcare facilities could not be put to use till date (May

2018) as allied works, budget, creation of posts, procurement of machines and

equipment were not ensured for functioning of these healthcare facilities by

the Health Department. Thus, failure to complete the works by resolving the

work bottlenecks and making the completed buildings functional by

addressing the deficiencies resulted in idle infrastructures on which

unproductive and wasteful expenditure of ` 11.30 crore was incurred. This

also deprived the common people to get affordable and quality healthcare

facility for more than three to 10 years as discussed in the table below.

Sl.

No.

Name of work

Expenditure Audit Findings

1 Construction of

CHC building at

Dubrajpur in

Tundi block of

Dhanbad

` 3.54 crore Despite completion of the works in November 2014, the

Executive Engineer (EE), Rural Development Special

Division (RDSD), Dhanbad did not progress with

preparing detailed estimates for electrical, water supply and

sanitary works for securing technical sanction of Chief

Engineer (CE), RDD. Instead, the EE tried (September

2015) to handover the building to Civil Surgeon cum Chief

Medical Officer (CS cum CMO) Dhanbad who refused

(December 2015) to take possession.

The Department replied (August 2017) that the works were

incomplete, pending provisions for electrical, water supply

and sanitation in the model estimates. The reply is

incorrect. Provisions for electrical, water supply and

sanitary works were already included in the model

estimates on lump sum basis. The works remained

incomplete only because EE did not prepare detailed

estimates.

Thus, the building could not be put to use and was lying

idle since November 2014 rendering unfruitful expenditure

of ` 3.54 crore. This deprived 1.02 lakh inhabitants of

Tundi block consisting of 190 villages of the intended

medical facilities.

2 Upgradation of

PHC to CHC

building, Kudu,

Lohardaga

` 2.07 crore EE, RDSD, Lohardaga took up (March 2008) the

upgradation work departmentally and spent ` 1.33 crore up

to March 2011 and stopped further work as the State

Government put an embargo (March 2011 extended upto

June 2012) on departmental execution of works.

Without TS, funds and drawings, the Chief Engineer, Rural

Development Department (RDD) irregularly floated (April

2011) tender for the balance work worth ` 2.17 crore,

116

Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare and Rural Development Departments


68

which was awarded (June 2011) by the Departmental

Tender Committee117

. After executing work worth ` 74.30

lakh, the contractor stopped (November 2013) further work

in the absence of drawings and technically sanctioned

estimates. The EE, RDSD although provided (August

2015) the drawings of electrification and sanitary works

only, the contractor refused to resume the work citing

increase in cost of items of work due to time overrun. Thus,

the building remained incomplete (September 2017) even

after a lapse of 10 years from the commencement of work

and the expenditure incurred worth ` 2.07 crore proved

unfruitful.

This deprived 84,827 inhabitants of Kuru block of the

upgraded medical facilities. (inset photograph)

Incomplete upgradation work of PHC to CHC

building, Kudu, Lohardaga ( 07 July 2017)

3 Construction of

Primary Health

Centre and

residential

quarters at

Pesrar,

Lohardaga

` 1.06 crore EE, Engineering Cell, South Chhotanagpur Division,

Ranchi awarded (June 2010) a work for ` 1.31 crore to be

completed by May 2011. After incurring expenditure of

` 1.06 crore the contractor abandoned (March 2012) the

work without assigning any reason. The EE did not initiate

penal action to get the work done by another contractor at

the risk and cost of the defaulting contractor as per terms

and conditions of contract. Thus, the building remained

incomplete (September 2017) rendering the expenditure of

` 1.06 crore unfruitful (inset photographs). As a result,

31,057 inhabitants of Peshrar block consisting of 73

villages were deprived of the intended medical facilities.

Incomplete building of Primary Health Centre,

Pesrar, Lohardaga (11 October 2017)

4 Construction of

State Ayurvedic

Medical College

at Chaibasa

` 2.88 crore Based on the TS (December 2007) and AA (January 2008)

for ` 3.73 crore, EE, Rural Works Division, Chaibasa

commenced (May 2008) the work departmentally and spent

` 2.88 crore up to June 2010 and thereafter stopped further

work due to non-availability of funds. The DC, Chaibasa

requested (May 2010) the Secretary, Health, Medical

Education and Family Welfare Department to provide

balance funds of ` 1.03 crore to complete the building. The

117

CE, RDS Zone, Ranchi, Deputy Secretary, RDD, Deputy Secretary cum Internal Financial

Advisor, RDD and SE, RDS Circle Ranchi and Hazaribagh


69

Department allotted ` 80 lakh to the DC in December 2012

after delay of two and half years and the embargo to

execute department work was effective (June 2012). Of

these, ` 20 lakh was paid for work executed up to June

2012 while the balance fund of ` 60 lakh was not utilised.

Resultantly, the works of flooring, electrical works, outer

plaster, fixing of doors, windows etc. could not be done.

Audit further observed that the tender for residual works

could not be invited as TS for the residual works were not

granted by the Chief Engineer (April 2018) for reasons not

on record.

Thus, the building remained incomplete (March 2018) for

more than seven years while the expenditure of ` 2.88

crore incurred on the incomplete structures proved

unfruitful. As a result, 1,050 (150 students per year for

seven years) eligible students were deprived of Ayurvedic

medical education due to non-completion of State

Ayurvedic Medical College at Chaibasa. (inset

photograph)

Incomplete building of State Ayurvedic Medical

College at Chaibasa, (13 May 2017)

5 Construction of

regional Food

and Drug

Laboratory at

Dumka.

` 1.75 crore Construction of the laboratory building taken up in March

2013 was completed (April 2015) at a cost of ` 1.75 crore

by the EE, Santhal Paragana Division, Health and Family

Welfare Department Dumka. The building was handed

over (April 2015) to CS cum CMO, Dumka but could not

be made functional (March 2018) due to failure of the

Secretary of the Department to create posts, purchase

machines and equipment for running the laboratory. Thus,

the building remained idle for almost three years while the

expenditure of ` 1.75 crore incurred on its construction

proved unproductive. As a result, quality testing of 15 food

and 77 drug samples of Dumka region had to be done at

Ranchi centre.

The Department stated (April 2018) that creation of post

was under process and machine and equipment would be

purchased after creation of post and further added that had

machines been purchased it would have been out of order

by putting them idle. The reply is not convincing as the

Department failed to synchronise all the concerned

activities to put the building to use upon completion.


70

The matter was referred to the Health and Rural Development Departments in

July and August 2017 followed by reminders between August 2017 and

January 2018. However, no reply had been received118

(June 2018).

WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT

2.4.6 Unfruitful Expenditure

Approval of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for construction of live model

of Rain Water Harvesting at an encroached site led to unfruitful

expenditure of `̀̀̀ 2.02 crore on DPR

Drinking Water and Sanitation Department (Department), Government of

Jharkhand accorded119

(September 2013) approval for setting up live model of

Rain Water Harvesting (RWH)120

at Vishwesariya Institute of Sanitation and

Water Academy (VISWA) Campus, Ranchi based on technical sanction

granted (July 2013) for the work by the Department for ` 11.90 crore. The

work included construction of live model piped water supply scheme, rain

centre, RWH House etc., and preparation of a Detailed Project Report (DPR).

Accordingly, the Department approved (June 2014) DPR for payment of

` 2.02 crore. In this connection, Audit observed as under:

• The proposed site for construction had been encroached and was sub judice

since 1990, and despite orders (December 2004) of High Court of Jharkhand,

the local administration had made no arrangements till date (May 2018) to

settle the encroachers before vacating the proposed land.

• According to rule 132 of the Jharkhand Public Works Departmental

(JPWD) code, except in case of emergent works such as repair of breaches,

etc., no work should be commenced on land which has not been duly made

over by the responsible civil officer.

Despite the land continuing to be under encroachment and sub judice since

1990, and despite being informed of this fact, the Executive Engineer (EE),

Drinking Water Division (DW&SD) Gonda, in violation of the JPWD code,

executed (May 2013) an agreement for ` 2.22 crore for preparation of DPR

which was approved (15 July 2013) by the Chief Engineer cum Executive

Director (CEED) of the Department who also was aware of the fact of

encroachment. The finalised DPR was approved by the CEED and ` 2.02

crore paid. Construction work is yet (May 2018) to commence, rendering the

expenditure of ` 2.02 crore unfruitful.

The matter was reported to the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department in

June 2017 and reminded for response between July 2017 and March 2018.

Their reply had not been received (June 2018).

118

In respect of (1) Upgradation of PHC to CHC building, Kudu, Lohardaga, (2) Construction

of Primary Health Centre and residential quarters at Pesrar, Lohardaga and (3)

Construction of State Ayurvedic Medical College at Chaibasa 119

In State Level Scheme Sanctioning Committee (SLSSC) meeting 120

The concept of rain centre was to make rain water harvesting as easy as possible to

understand for the visitors using the audio visual medium. Main components were Rain

Centre, Lived Model-Piped water, Wind Mill, Solar Energy, Amusement Park, Thematic

Thinking Tree etc.


71

ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENTS

2.4.7 Unfruitful expenditure

Commencement of bridge works without ensuring availability of land for

approach roads and non-synchronisation of road and bridge works

resulted in three bridges lying idle for three to four years rendering

expenditure of `̀̀̀ 4.66 crore unfruitful besides blocking `̀̀̀ 76.82 lakh for

more than four years

As per paragraph 4.5 and 7.5 of Resolution No 948 dated 16 July 1986 of

Cabinet Secretariat and Co-ordination Department (Vigilance Cell), if there is

need for acquisition of land in any project, tender process for commencement

of the work shall be initiated only after such acquisition. Further, as per order

(August 2012) of Road Construction Department (RCD), if land acquisition is

required for construction of a bridge work, tender should be invited only after

obtaining clearance of required land from the concerned District Land

Acquisition Officer (DLAO).

Construction of three bridges121

with approach roads were technically

sanctioned122

(TS) by the Chief Engineer (CE), Central Design Organisation

(CDO), Road Construction Department (RCD) and Chief Engineer, Rural

Development Department (RDD) Jharkhand for ` 6.34 crore and

administratively approved123

by RCD and RDD for ` 6.18 crore. The bridge

works were taken up for construction at a cost of ` 5.30 crore between May

2013 and January 2015 for completion between May 2014 and July 2016. The

bridges were completed between March 2014 and May 2016 after incurring

expenditure of ` 4.66 crore124

. However, these were not connected by

approach roads till May 2018 as land needed for construction of approach

roads could not be acquired by the Deputy Commissioners (DC) Dumka and

Sahibganj as discussed below.

(A) Construction of High level (HL) bridge over local river with

approach road at 45th

km of Ranibahal-Maheshkhala Road

The Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the work of approach road prepared by

the Executive Engineer (EE) Field Survey division Dumka had no provision

for acquisition of land for approach road for reasons not on record. The DPR

was technically sanctioned (March 2013) by CE, CDO and administratively

approved (May 2013) by RCD.

121

Bridge 1: at 45th

km of Ranibahal-Maheshkhala Road; Bridge 2: at 6th

km of Pattabari-

Masanjore Road and Bridge 3: over Chhotalaxmi Nala between Chhotalaxmi and Basaha

Mission 122

Bridge 1: ` 94.91 lakh (March 2013) revised to ` 151.25 lakh (August 2014), Bridge 2 :

` 91.98 lakh (February 2013) revised to ` 107.70 lakh (August 2014) and Bridge 3:

` 3.75 crore (September 2014) 123

Bridge 1: ` 107.29 lakh (May 2013) revised to ` 151.25 lakh (January 2015), Bridge 2:

` 91.98 lakh (March 2013) and Bridge 3: ` 3.75 crore. 124

Bridge 1: ` 70.50 lakh, Bridge 2: ` 71.15 lakh and Bridge 3: ` 3.24 crore


72

During execution of bridge work by Road division Dumka, the EE requested

(December 2013) the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Dumka for acquisition of

1.10 acre land for approach road and deposited (March 2015) ` 13.08 lakh

against the demand (February 2015) of ` 15.30 lakh by DC Dumka. However,

the DC raised (September 2016) additional demand of ` 30.25 lakh which was

subsequently revised (February 2017) to ` 39.18 lakh citing revised rate of

land as per Land Acquisition Act 2013.

The revised demands were not met as revised technical sanction for the work

valued at ` 2.55 crore which included provision of land acquisition worth

` 39.18 lakh was sought by the EE Road division Dumka in April 2018 which

was not approved till date (June 2018). Hence, the land could not be acquired

(June 2018). No reasons were on record of the division/EIC either for delayed

preparation (five years from the original TS/AA) of revised TS or for not

approving it in two months since submission.

Meanwhile, the contractor completed (March 2014) the bridge work and

requested (April 2015) the EE to close the agreement as land for approach

road could not be acquired. The Engineer-in-Chief (EIC), RCD ordered

(September 2016) to close the agreement on the ground of non-availability of

land for approach road.

Thus, deficient preparation of DPR by EE, Field Survey division Dumka and

its approval by CE, CDO without ensuring provision of land for approach

road, led to non-commencement of approach road to connect the bridge which

has been lying idle for more than four years since March 2014. Hence, the

expenditure incurred on the idle bridge worth ` 70.50 lakh proved unfruitful.

The EIC, RCD accepted (July 2017) the audit findings that the approach road

was incomplete due to non-acquisition of land.

(B) HL bridge with approach road at 6th

km of Pattabari-Masanjore

Road

The approved DPR

included construction

of the bridge beside

the existing road with

changed alignment

in that stretch. The

EE Road Division,

Dumka submitted

(February 2014) a

proposal to DC, Dumka to acquire 13 acre land and deposited (March 2014)

` 63.74 lakh against the demand (March 2014) of ` 93.97 lakh. However, the

land could not be acquired by DC and the department decided (May 2015) to

construct the road on existing alignment. The EE submitted (July 2015 and

July 2016) revised requirement for acquisition of 1.35 acre land to DC which

was needed to connect the bridge with approach roads as per the revised

alignment. However, land was not acquired for the approach road as of

June 2018 as compensation against land acquisition was finalised only in

May 2018 by District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO), Dumka and payment

was yet to be made (June 2018).

HL bridge at 6th KM of Pattabari-Masanjore Road with no approach


73

Meanwhile, the contractor completed (March 2015) the bridge work at a cost

of ` 71.15 lakh which was lying idle for more than three years since its

completion. Hence, the expenditure incurred on the idle bridge was rendered

unfruitful. Besides, ` 63.74 lakh deposited for land acquisition was also

blocked with DC Dumka for more than four years.

The EIC, RCD accepted (July 2017) the audit findings that the approach road

was incomplete due to non-acquisition of land.

(C) Bridge over Chhotalaxmi Nala between Chhotalaxmi and Basaha

Mission with approach road

The contractor completed (May 2016) the bridge work at a cost of ` 3.24 crore

except the work of approach

road

on one end (Basaha

Mission side) of the bridge.

In the approved DPR, the EE

Rural Development Special

Division (RDSD), Sahibganj

mentioned (September 2014)

that for construction of

approach road, Mukhiya of

the Panchayat and Raiyati

land owners had agreed to

gift their land and under this

impression, no provision of

land acquisition was made in the DPR. Hence, no funds were earmarked for

land acquisition.

As the EE did not take any gift deed from the willing land owners while

preparing the DPR, the work of approach road was stopped midway on one

side after construction of 50 out of 200 metres upon denial by land owners to

gift their land. It was noticed that the land owners demanded compensation for

their land used in the construction work.

At the instance (January 2017) of Audit, the EE, RDSD, Sahibganj intimated

(April 2017) CE, Rural Development Special Zone, Ranchi about requirement

of 1.24 acre raiyati land for construction of approach road and submitted

(July 2017) the proposal of land acquisition to DC, Sahibganj. However, land

has not been acquired till date (June 2018). DLAO, Sahibganj informed

(June 2018) Audit that it was under process.

Thus, the bridge could not be put to use for more than two years since its

completion. A joint physical verification (August 2017) of the bridge by Audit

with the Engineers of the division confirmed that it was lying idle in the

absence of approach road and the Basha Mission side of the bridge ends into a

forest without any connecting road ahead of the bridge. Hence, the

expenditure incurred on the bridge worth ` 3.24 crore proved unfruitful.

The Department (RDD) stated (August 2017) that proposal for acquisition of

raiyati land had been submitted to DC, Sahibganj by the EE and after

acquisition of land, approach road would be completed. The reply is not

convincing as the work should have commenced only after acquisition of land

and the approach road, even if completed, would not add any value unless the

Bridge over Chhotalaxmi Nala between Chhotalaxami and Basaha

Mission with no approach road


74

approach road is connected to a link road for movement of traffic though the

bridge.

Thus, commencement of bridge works without ensuring possession of land for

construction of the approach roads resulted in these three bridges lying idle

upon completion for three to four years rendering expenditure of ` 4.66 crore

unfruitful, besides blockade of ` 76.82 lakh125

for more than four years.


2.4.8 Mis-utilisation of Government money-unnecessary construction of

bridge

Injudicious sanction of a bridge by Road Construction Department to

connect Kargali and Chalkari villages despite construction of another

bridge by Rural Development Department to connect the same villages

already in progress led to misutilisation of Government money worth

`̀̀̀ 15.47 crore

Rural Development Department (RDD), Government of Jharkhand is

responsible for management of rural road networks and to ensure rural

connectivity as per objective of the RDD. The Road Construction Department

(RCD) is responsible for management of state highways, major district roads

(MDR) and other roads known as public work department (PWD) roads.

Chief Minister (CM) Secretariat directed (February 2012) the Principal

Secretaries, RDD and RCD to provide connectivity between Kargali and

Chalkari villages by construction of a bridge on Damodar river. In response,

the Chief Engineer (CE), Rural Development Special Zone, Ranchi technically

sanctioned (November 2013) a bridge on Damodar river for ` 10.31 crore.

The bridge was to connect Kargali (at Ram Bilash High School) and Chalkari

in Bermo/Petrwar block of Bokaro district. The bridge was administratively

approved (February 2014) by RDD under Mukhya Mantri Gram Setu

Yojna126

. The construction work was commenced (July 2014) by Executive

Engineer (EE), Rural Development Special Division (RDSD), Bokaro at

agreed (4F2/14-15) cost of ` 9.93 crore for completion within 24 months. The

bridge was under construction till June 2017 and the contractor was paid

` 5.50 crore.

Concurrently, CE, Central Design Organisation (CDO), RCD technically

sanctioned (September 2014) a parallel bridge for ` 25.13 crore to connect

Kargali (at filter plant) with Chalkari at a distance of approximately 800

metres from the site of bridge under construction by RDD. The purposes of

both the bridges were to connect Kargali from Chalkari.

It was noticed from the technical sanction and administrative approval of the

bridge work that the approach roads of the bridge were not PWD roads and

hence, sanction of bridge works over which RCD had no jurisdiction was

injudicious. The work was taken up (May 2015) by EE, Road Construction

Division at an agreed (1 SBD/15-16) cost of ` 23.12 crore for completion

within 36 months. The bridge work was under progress as of June 2017 and

the contractor was paid ` 15.47 crore.

125

Bridge A: ` 13.08 lakh and Bridge B: ` 63.74 lakh 126

A scheme to fill unbridged gap in rural roads.


75

Thus, construction of two parallel bridges 800 metres apart for the same

purpose of connecting the villages Kargali and Chalkari indicated coordination

deficits between RDD and RCD which resulted in mis-utilisation of

government money worth ` 15.47 crore up to June 2017 incurred on the

bridge taken up later.

Engineer-in-Chief (EIC), RCD interalia stated (July 2017) that the bridge

constructed by RCD was wider and had better specification than the bridge of

RDD and was suitable for heavy vehicles.

However, EIC could not explain the reasons for taking up construction of the

bridge when another bridge was already under construction by RDD for the

same purpose.

The matter was also reported to the Road Construction Department in July

2017 followed by reminders between September 2017 and November 2017, no

reply had been received (June 2018).

Ranchi

The

(C. NEDUNCHEZHIAN)

Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand

Countersigned

New Delhi

The

(RAJIV MEHRISHI)

Comptroller and Auditor General of India

Appendix-2.2.1

(Referred to in paragraph 2.2.2.3; page 27) Functioning of ultrasound centres by the same radiologist in

different centres/locations

Sl.

No.

District Name of

Radiologist

Name of USG centres

1

BOKARO

Dr A K Sinha

1. Amaresh ultrasound clinic, I T I More Chas, Bokaro

2. Brimbs Medical college & hospital, Sector -6 B.S..City, Bokaro

3. Bokaro Scan centre, 44- Cooperative colony, Bokaro

4. Neelam Hospital & Research centre, Jodhadih More Chas, Bokaro

2 Dr. B Dayal

1. Clini Lab Diagnostic centre, Sector-IV Bokaro

2. Digital health care, Pl M 5 City centre, Bokaro

3. City X-ray, Pt no-B5, Laxmi Market ,Bokaro

3 DEOGHAR

Dr. Anil

Kumar

Barnwal.

1. Ramkrishna Mission Vidhiyapith, Williams Town Deoghar. (Reg. No.02)

2. Apex Diagnostic, Subhash Chowk, Deoghar.

3. Ramkrishna Mission Vidhiyapith, Williams Town Deoghar.(Reg. No.03)

4 RANCHI Dr Manish

Kumar

1. Anjuman Islamia Hospital, Ranchi (Konka Road)

2. Dr Reeta Verma, Medicare Hospital, Kanta Toli, Purulia Road, Ranchi.

3. Ali ultrasound centre, Ranchi Surgical Clinic Ramjan colony, Kantatoli,

Ranchi

4. Life Care ultrasound centre, Near Gurudawara, Opp-Mallah Toli Road,

Main Road, Ranchi.

5 RANCHI Dr Rajni Lal

1. Lal Nursing Home, Rouniyar Path, Ratu Road, Ranchi.

2. Vishal Sewa Sadan,Daily Market, Ratu, Ranchi

3. The Advance Pathology & Imaging Centre ,Block Road, Kanke, Ranchi-6

6 RANCHI

Dr Rakesh

Kumar

Vidrohi

1. Dr. (Mrs) Karuna Shahdeo Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, Ranchi.

2. Director, Rinchi Trust Hospital, Near DAV Hehal, Kathal More, Ranchi.

3. Vibha Diagnostic Centre, Complex, Opp-Mahabir Tower, Kathitand,

Ratu, Ranchi.

7 RANCHI

Dr Sangeeta

Jha

1. The Seven Palm Hospital & Research Centre Lalgutwa, Ranchi.

2. Mecon Limited, Ispat Hospital, Shyamli Colony, Ranchi..

3. Dr. Ajit Kumar Jha, Bhaskar ultrasound, Shop No- 08, Krishna Tower,

Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi..

8 RANCHI Dr Seema

Verma

1. IVF & Infertility Research Centre Morabadi, Ranchi. 834008

2. M/S Alam Hospital & Research Centre, Booty Road, Bariatu, Ranchi.

3. A.H. IVF & Infertility Research Centre,10, Tagore Hill Road, Morabadi,

Ranchi

4. Dr Seema Verma, ultrasound clinic, Rameshwaram, Ranchi.

5. Santevita Hospital, Hazaribagh Road, (Near Firayalal Chowk), Ranchi.

6. High Court Dispensary ,Doranda, Ranchi.

9 RANCHI Dr Swati

Chaitanya

1. Dr Sujeet Kumar Kasyap, Anand Mayi Nagar, Block Road, Ratu, Ranchi.

2. R.K. ultrasound, Heritage Complex, Bariatu, Ranchi.

3. Suyog Hospital ,Lem Bargain (Near Kabristan), Bariatu, Ranchi-9.

10. RANCHI

Dr Ziaur

Rahman

1. Aditi Diagnostic centre, Singhal Surgical Hospital ,Itki Road, Ranchi

2. Gulmohar Hospital,NH-33, Booty More, Ranchi-9

3. Abdur Razzaque Ansari Memorial Weavers Hospital, (Appolo), City

Medical centre ,Main Road Ranchi.

4. The Pulse , Oppsite-RIMS, Bariatu, Ranchi.

5. Bhagwan Mahavir Medica Super Specialty Hospital, (Unit of Medica

Hospitals Pvt .Ltd.), P.H.E.D. More, Bariatu Road, Ranchi-834009

6. Medanta- Abdur Razzaque Ansari Memorial Weavers Hospital ,Irba,

Ranchi

11. CHAIBASA Dr. P Minz

1. Diagnostic centre Sadar Hospital Chaibasa

2. Akansha Srishti ,House -3, Teacher Colony, Pump Road, Chaibasa

3. Mundhra Hospital European Quarters Chaibasa

4. Doctor X- Ray, Old Rungta Market, Amla Tola Chaibasa, West Singhbhum

12 JAMSHEDPUR Dr. Deepak

Kumar

1. MS Nishant Telemedical & Diagnostic Centre, Sakchi, Jamshedpur

2. Modi Pathology, Kadma

3. St. Joseph Hospital, Bhilaipahari, Jamshedpur

4. Arogyam Radiology, South Park, Bisputupur, Jamshedpur

5. Jeevandeep Sakchi, Jamshedpur


78

6. Radiology Drishti Diagnostic centre, Sidgora, Jamshedpur

13 JAMSHEDPUR Dr. Devesh

Bahadur

1. Tinplate Hospital, Jamshedpur,

2. MSDNB Manas Urologist, Mango, Jamshedpur

3. Aspir Nurshing Home Prowin Nagar, Jamshedpur

4. Medica Hospital, Jamshedpur

5. Narayana Diagnostic & Imaging, Sakchi, Jamshedpur

6. Dr. T. John Memorial Charitable Foundation, Jamshedpur

14 JAMSHEDPUR Dr. D C Besra

1. MGM Medical College & Hospital, Jamshedpur

2. Gandhi X- ray and Computerised Patholab, Mango, Jamshedpur

3. Sanjeevani, Sakchi, Jamshedpur

15 JAMSHEDPUR Dr. Arpita

Banerjee

1. Necleus & Medical Diagnostic centre, Govindpur, Jamshedpur

2. Nucleus Diagnostic Centre Bari Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur

3. Wellness Diagnostic, Jamshedpur

16 JAMSHEDPUR Dr. Anil

Kumar Gupta

1. Sr. Jessy, Mercy Hospital, Baridih, Jamshedpur

2. Dashrath Kountia, Life Line Nursing Home, Rajendra Nagar, Jamshedpur

3. Mr. Dashrath Kountia, Discovery Diagnostic, New Baradwari sakchi,

Jamshedpur

17 JAMSHEDPUR

Dr. Samir

Kumar Patra

1. Seva X-Ray Clinic & Diagnostic centre, Near Rly Station Ghatsila

2. Dr. Geeta Baidya Suraksha scan centre College road, Ghatsila, East

Singhbhum

3. Mr. Tarun Panda, C/O Ram Pravesh Singh, Singh Nursing Home, Ghatsila

4. Zeba X-Ray Clinic and diagnostic centre, Amrit Medical Chakulia

18 JAMSHEDPUR

Dr. Sanjay Lal

Srivastav,

1. M/s Tata Motors Hospital, Kharangajhar, Telco Hospital, Jamshedpur 4

(Registration no. 172)

2. Tata Main Hospital, (CCU), Jamshedpur

3. M/s Tata Motors Hospital, Kharangajhar, Telco Hospital, Jamshedpur


4. Tata Motors Hospital, Kharangajhar, Telco, Jamshedpur


Appendices

79

Appendix-2.2.2

(Referred to in paragraph 2.2.4.5 page 31)

Status of compliance of recommendations of statutory bodies

Sl.

No.

Date of

meeting

Decision Reason for non-implementation

A. Central Supervisory Board (CSB)

I 1/10/2014 1. Restricting qualified doctors to two

clinics to operate ultrasound machine

in a district.

In violation of the recommendation, 18 radiologists were registered with more

than two USG centres in two out of six sampled districts and three other

districts as discussed in paragraph no. 2.2.2.3

2. Online grievance/complaint portal

for receiving complaints

Against the recommendations (May 2015) to set-up online

grievances/complaint portal for the Act, the Department took up development

of website for PCPNDT which included provision of grievance redressal

portal only in October 2017. However, it was not completed till April 2018 as

discussed in paragraph 2.2.4.9 (i)

3. Making of comprehensive website

on the implementation of PCPNDT

Act.

The website has not been developed till date (April 2018)

B. State Supervisory Board (SSB)

I 18/02/2015 1. Reconstitution of the State Statutory

committees i.e., State Supervisory

Board, State Advisory committee,

State Monitoring and Inspection

Committee and State Appropriate

Authority

Implemented

2. Public awareness with regard to PC

PNDT Act

Partial awareness programmes were conducted under IEC activities in three

out of six sampled districts Dhanbad, East Singhbhum and Sahibganj.

3. Strengthening of State Cell of

PCPNDT by hiring legal expert

Appointment of legal expert has not been made till April 2018.

4. Launching of special inspection

drive by State Inspection &

Monitoring Committee in a regular

basis and in rigorous manner

SIMC did not carry out any inspection of USG centres during 2014-17

although constituted in August 2011 by GoJ to undertake field visits and

conduct monitoring and inspections of USG centres as discussed in paragraph

2.2.4.7 (i). SAA stated that members of SIMC were engaged with other

programme and hence, regular inspection could not be held. The reply was

not acceptable as engagement with other programmes did not absolve them of

the responsibility of inspection of the USG centres for which this body was

created.

5. Involvement of local people for

effective monitoring of USG centres

Funds for decoy operation was provided (November 2017) only in three out

of 24 districts as discussed in paragraph no. 2.2.4.9 (ii)

6. Orientation of judiciary personnel Implemented

7. Online tracking of Form ’F’ Online tracking of Form F is not done as the website of PCPNDT which

would facilitate such tracking was not completed as discussed in para 2.2.4.9

(i)

8. Involvement of NGOs to take

support of child rights in

implementation of PCPNDT Act.

Test checked districts neither involve NGO nor take any support from them.

The reason was not on record.

9 Public awareness for discouraging

foeticide

Partial awareness programme were conducted under IEC activities in three


10. Organisation of seminars for

Anganwadi Sahiya and Sevika



11. Holding of workshops at District

and Block levels for sensitization of

USG centres owners and Doctors



12. Inspection of USG centres once in

three months

SIMC did not carry out any inspection of USG centres during 2014-17

although constituted in August 2011 by GoJ to undertake field visits and

conduct monitoring and inspections of USG centres as discussed in paragraph

2.2.4.7 (i). SAA stated that members of SIMC were engaged with other

programme and hence, regular inspection could not be held. The reply was

not acceptable as engagement with other programmes did not absolve them of

the responsibility of inspection of the USG centres for which this body was

created.


80

13 GIS mapping of USG centres GIS mapping of USG centres were completed in five districts and in progress

(January 2018) in the remaining 19 out of 24 districts. In none of the test

checked districts, GIS mapping work has been completed till January 2018 as

the vendors did not submit report of sale and purchase of machines to SAA as

discussed in para 2.2.4.8 (iii).

14. Inclusion of PC&PNDT Act in

Udan module

PCPNDT Act is not included in Udan model. The reason was not on record.

Appendix-2.2.3

(Referred to in paragraph 2.2.4.7 (iii) page 35) Centres not having back up of images/slides for more than two years

Sl.

No.

District No. of

centres

inspected

No. of form

F/cases

checked

Referral

slip not

attached

No. of cases

with

incomplete

form F

No. of centres in which

back up of images/slide

for two years not

maintained

1 Dhanbad 20 617 50 138 15

2 Jamshedpur 17 831 178 486 11

3 Sahibganj 04 313 11 313 03

4 Ranchi 14 726 431 585 11

5 Koderma 14 590 282 122 07

6 Gumla 03 640 27 613 02

Total 72 3,717 979 2,257 49

Appendix-2.2.4 (Referred to in paragraph 2.2.4.7 (iii) page 35)

Change of machine and radiologist not intimated by the USGs centres to the DAA

Sl.

No.

Name of USG centre Registration

no.

Name of

radiologist as

per records of

DAA

Name of radiologist

performing

ultrasound in the

centre

Change of USG machine

1 Jeevan Deep, Sakchi,

Jamshedpur

152/2012 Dr. A K Gupta Dr. P K Sinha NA

2 Orient Nursing Home,

Dhatkidih Jamshedpur

116/09-10 Dr. Ritu

Verma

Dr. V Murmu NA

3 Meditec diagnostic Centre,

Dimna Road, Jamshedpur

131/11-12 Dr. Deepak

Kumar

Dr. D C Besra NA

4 Diagnostic Hub Bistupur

Jamshedpur

154/2012 Dr. Payal

Prasad

Dr. Devesh Bahadur NA

5 Discovery Diagnostic Centre,

Sakchi Jamshedpur

156/2012 Dr. Anil

Kumar Gupta

Dr. Saba Feraz NA

6 Medika Diagnostic Centre,

Bistupur Jamshedpur

176/14-15 Dr. D C Besra Dr. Nitin Kumar NA

7 Nexgen Diagnostic, Sakchi

Jamshedpur

188/2015 Dr. Devesh

Bahadur

Dr. Sunita Kumari NA

8 Ideal Imaging Centre, Sakchi

Jamshedpur

191/2015 Dr. Arpita

Banerjee

Dr. Deepak Kumar

Dr. S Ali

NA

9 Medica Diagnostic Centre,

Dhatkidih Jamshedpur

193//2015 Dr. D C Besra Dr. P K Sinha NA

10 Health Map, Sadar Hospital,

Jamshedpur

197/2016 Dr. D C Besra Dr. Sushil Kumar NA

11 Surya Nursing Home,

Sahibganj

01/06-07 Dr. Vijay

Kumar

Dr. Ajay Kumar

Singh

NA

12 Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj 02/11-12 Dr. Devesh

Kumar

Dr. P P Pandey NA

13 Asian Dwarakadas Jalan Sup

Hospital, Dhanbad

DBD 000/2017 Dr. Subhash

Chandra Bose.

Md. Ibrar NA

14 Sahyog Diagnostic Centre,

Dhanbad

05/2001 Dr. Abhijit

Sarkar/Dr.

Bijay Kumar

Dr. Rajeev Aggrawal NA

Appendices

81

Dhanbad

Sl. No.

Name of USG centre Registration

no.

Name and

make of

registered

USG machine

USG machine

functional in USG

centre

Remarks

15 X-Ray & Echo House DBD-

022/2002

Wipro GE

Logiq p5

Voluson Siemens

Sonoline 60.5 Model

P62502016

Registered USG machine

was not available in the

centre

16 Relief Diagnostic Centre DBD

0002/2013

LP-5 Pro

Premium India

Wipro GE

Machine Number of

idle machine was not

legible

Non-functional machine was

kept in the centre without

intimation to the DAA

17 Dr. Debashish Chakraborty

Nursing Home

DBD 29/2008-

09

Sonalisa

(Larsen &

Toubro) Sl.

No.

708v44684

Logiq Pro P3

(Wipro)

CISRR11/EN 55011

Utilization of new USG

machine without

intimation/approval of DAA

Appendix-2.2.5

(Referred to in paragraph 2.2.4.7 (iv); page 37) Delays in renewal/registration of USG centres

Dhanbad

Sl. No.

(1)

Name of USG centre &

Address

(2)

Registration

No.

(3)

Renewal due

date/valid up to

(4)

Date of renewal

by CS

(5)

Delay in days

(6)

(5-4-70 days1)

1 Regional Railway Hospital,

Dhanbad 40/2009 04/05/2014 17/10/2014 96

2 X ray and Scan Centre,

Bartand, Dhanbad 38/2009 21/03/2014 08/09/2014 101

3 Luxmi Ultra Sound, Jharia 0005/2011 14/07/2016 24/01/2017 124

4 R.C. Hazara Memorial

hospital Telephone

Exchange Road Dhanbad

25/2002 10/04/2012 12/09/2015 1,180

5 Life Line Main Road ,

Jharia 30/08-09 30/09/2013 17/10/2014 312

Sahibganj

6 Surya Nursing Home,

Sahibganj 01/2006-07 09/05/2016 29/09/2016 73

Jamshedpur

7 Dr. Neeraj Kumar Clinic,

Sakchi Jamshedpur 106/09-10 30/07/2014 15/04/2017 920

8 Orient Diagnostic,

Dhatkidih, Jamshedpur 116/09-10 15/01/2015 15/02/2016 326

Ranchi

9 Dr. Papiya Roy, 69, Station

Road, Ranchi 243/12 03/04/2012 30/08/2012 79

1 Rule 18A (4) (i) Appropriate Authority has to dispose of the application for renewal and new registration

within a period of seventy days from the date of receipt of applications.


82

Appendix-2.2.6

(Referred to in paragraph 2.2.4.7 (iv); page 37) Delays in submission for renewal by USG centres

Dhanbad

Sl.

No.

Name of USG centres &

Address

Registration

no.

Date of

Registration/re

newal

Renewal due

date/valid upto

Due date for

submission of

Application for

renewal

Actual date of

submission for

renewal

Delay in

days

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7-6)

1 B P Sinha Memorial clinic

Gandhi Nagar Dhanbad 08/2001 1/10/2008 30/09/2013 30/08/2013 28/09/2013 29

2 Regional Railway hospital,

Dhanbad 40/2009 08/05/2009 07/05/2014 07/04/2014 04/08/2014 119

3 Samrendra Nath Chakraborty

memorial nursing home

Adarsh Vihar , Dhansar,

Dhanbad

29/08-09 1/10/2008 30/09/2013 30/08/2013 25/09/2013 26

4 Patliputra nursing home

Joraphatak Road Dhanbad 54/10-11 21/02/2011 20/02/2016 20/01/2016 11/03/2016 51

5 X ray and Scan centre,

Bartand, Dhanbad 38/2009 27/03/2009 26/03/2014 26/02/2014 07/05/2014 70

6 Luxmi Ultra Sound, Jharia 0005/2011 22/07/2011 21/07/2016 21/06/2016 12/08/2016 52

7 R C Hazara Memorial

hospital telephone exchange

road Dhanbad

25/2002 20/02/2003 10/04/2012 09/03/2012 11/04/2015 1,131

8 X ray and Echo house,

Joraphatak Road, Dhanbad 0022/2002 20/02/2007 19/02/2017 18/01/2017 17/03/2017 58

Ranchi

9 IVF & Infertility Research

centre, Morhabadi 112/07 27/06/2007 26/06/2012 26/05/2012 09/07/2012 44

10 R Jeevan Jyoti nursing home,

Upper Bazar Ranchi 134/2007 07/01/2008 06/01/2013 06/12/2012 22/12/2012 16

11 Ranchi nursing home Booty

More 144/08 24/01/2008 23/01/2013 23/12/2012 12/01/2013 20

12 HEC Plant hospital, Dhurwa 145/2008 04/02/2008 03/02/2013 03/01/2013 03/04/2013 90

13 Seventh Day Adventist

Mission, hospital, Bariatu,

Ranchi

138/2008 08/01/2008 07/01/2013 07/12/2012 07/01/2013 30

14 Astha Mother and Child

Care, Harmu Housing colony,

Ranchi

114/2007 09/08/2007 08/08/2012 08/07/2012 28/07/2012 20

15 Harmu Hospital & Research

Centre, Harmu, Ranchi 142/2008 08/01/2008 07/01/2013 07/12/2012 02/01/2013 25

16 Summer Hospital & Research

Centre, Singh More, Hatia 118/2007 04/10/2007 03/10/2012 03/09/2012 18/09/2012 15

17 Maa Ram Pyari Orthopaedic

centre, Karamtoli, Ranchi 167/2009 14/05/2009 13/05/2014 13/04/2014 12/05/2014 28

18 Shalini hospital, Angara,

Ranchi 214/2011 14/05/2011 13/05/2016 13/04/2016 02/05/2016 19

19 Dr. Papiya Roy, 69, Station

Road, Ranchi 243/12 04/04/2007 03/04/2012 03/03/2012 12/06/2012 69

Sahibganj

20 Sadar hospital, Sahibganj 02/2011-12 21/03/2012 20/03/2017 20/02/2017 27/03/2017 37

21 Prem Jyoti hospital, Barhait,

Sahibganj 01/12-13 10/01/2008 23/06/2012 23/05/2012 14/02/2013 267

Appendices

83

Appendix-2.3.1

(Referred to in paragraph 2.3.3.1; page 47) Process-flow chart for notification of forest

Government

Forest

Settlement

Officer (FSO)

Department

• Declaration of any forest land or waste land as protected forest

under proviso of Section 29 of IFA, 1927 i. e. Preliminary

notification.

• Appointment of FSOs for inquiry and settlement and prepare

the records of rights under the Act.

• On submission of proposal by the department, publication of

the final notification declaring the forest with description of

limit of the forest and de- notification of the area excluded.

• Specification of the limits of the proposed forest and enquiry

into the claims and rights of the affected persons, who have

submitted their claims within prescribed time.

• After enquiry either exclusion of such land from the limits of

the proposed forest or acquire such land as per Land

Acquisition Act if such claim was admitted in part or full.

• Issue of order admitting exclusion of the land in part or full.

• Acquisition of land through following land acquisition

proceedings.

• Modification of the forest area, maps accordingly with

accuracy of the map with that of the boundary and

demarcation on the ground through fixed pillars number.

Authentication of the maps with DFO jointly.

• Preparation of a short report along with map of the proposed

forest showing the original boundaries and the modifications

made during the settlement.

• Preparation of draft for (i) final notification of the proposed

forest and (ii) de- notification of the area excluded by

government with brief description.

• After submission of draft by FSO, submission of proposal for

notification/de-notification to Government.

Levels Responsibilities


84

Appendix-2.3.2

(Referred to in paragraph 2.3.3.1; page 48) Details of forest land and total land in three villages notified as protected forest vide

notification no. 10152/52-5803-R dated 27/12/1952

Sl. No.

of the

notification

Name of

the village

Thana Number Forest area as

per notification

(in acre)

Plot no. as per

notification

Actual area of the

plot

(in acre)

242 Dorahia Giridih/

Bengabad 372

34.76 2 43.73

52 12.25

34.76 Total(A) 55.98

243 Bishunpur Giridih/

Bengabad 373

47.63 1 65.10

15 4.76

47.63 Total(B) 69.86

244 Noniatand Giridih/

Bengabad 376

120.67

2 34.45

3 56.40

46 18.35

287 50.55

48 34.10

291 29.20

120.67 Total(C) 223.05

203.06

or 82.18 hectare

TOTAL (A+B+C) 348.89

or 141.19 hectare

Appendix-2.3.3 (Referred to in paragraph 2.3.3.1; page 49)

List of notified forest land/plots encroached by M/s Electrosteel Steels Limited

Sl.

No.

Name of PF Plot

no.

Demarcated notified

forest area (acre)

Encroached area.

(acre)

Details of

notification

Remarks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1

Bhagabandh

1120 51.34 51.34 C/F–17014/58–

1439 R

dt. 24/05/1958

2 1159 51.62 51.62 – do –

3 1389 21.64 21.64 – do –

4 1321 8.78 8.78 – do –

5 1105 11.42 6.13 – do –

6 941 2.84 1.94 – do –

7 882 4.14 4.14

8 1428 0.38 Demarcated but not

notified forest.

9 1149 1.42

Sub Total = 147.39

10

Sialjori

4836 52.98

0.05

0.06

1.08

1.04

16.62

52.98

C/F–17014/58–

1439 R

dt. 24/05/1958

11 4837 0.05

12 4839 0.06

13 4840 1.08

14 4856 1.04

15 4974 16.62

Sub Total = 71.83

16 Hutupathar 1092,

1090

0.78 -do

Sub Total = 0.78

17 Bandhdih 1605 0.88 -do-

Sub Total = 0.88

Total :- 220.88

or 89.39 hectare

Appendices

85

Appendix-2.3.4

(Referred to in paragraph 2.3.3.1; page 50)

List of suspected forest land sold in CHAS circle

Plots notified as

Protectecd Forest

vide notification

Notified

plot no. No of

cases

Anchal

name

Mauja

name Thana no Khata no Plot no

Area of land involved

in registry (in dismil)

No. C/F-17014/58-

1429-R dt.

24.05.1958 (Plot

No. 7358, 7360,

7562, 7768, 7788,

7790, 7885,7923,

7925 & 7926),

Total Notified Area

:166.48 Acre.

7358 9 CHAS CHAS 30 128 7358 136.00

7562 76 CHAS CHAS 30 752 7562 370.39

7768 11 CHAS CHAS 30 748, 778 7768 50.25

7788 33 CHAS CHAS 30 752 7788 406.7

7790 26 CHAS CHAS 30 752 7790 2,927.14

7885 12 CHAS CHAS 30 746 7885 44.25

7925 17 CHAS CHAS 30 739 7925 513.22

7926 1 CHAS CHAS 30 739 7926 1

185

4,448.95

or 18.00 hectare


Unauthenticated release of land

Division Area of released forest

land (in hectare)

Remarks

Bokaro 1,194.65 De-notification of these

released forest lands was

not done so far. Dumka 757.47

Jamshedpur (Dhalbhum) 57.10

Medninagar 1,567.14

Total 3,576.36


Non-forest land pending for declaration as forest

Sl.

No.

Division Area

(in hectare)

1 Buffer Area, PTR 40.93

2 Core Area, PTR 39.13

3 Giridih (East) 69.21

4 Hazaribagh 375.31

5 Jamshedpur 137.23

6 Porahat 69.55

7 Simdega 29.05

Total 760.41


86

Appendix-2.3.7 (Referred to in paragraph 2.3.4; page 56)

Status of division wise forest area

Sl.

No.

Name of forest

division

Area recorded

during 2001

(in hectare)

Name of forest division Area as per Annual

Administrative

Report 2014-15

(in hectare)

1 Saranda 85,882 Saranda 85,654.00

2 Kolhan 70,042 Kolhan 70,006.00

3 Porahat 66,542 Porahat 76,401.65

4 Chaibasa South 50,906 Chaibasa 52,048.16

5 Chaibasa North 68,026 Saraikela 54,349.56

6 Dhalbhum 1,04,913 Jamshedpur 89,965.62

7 Ranchi East 91,924 Ranchi 71,306.71

8 Ranchi West 1,00,034 Lohardaga 61,793.50

9 Gumla 1,30,834 Gumla 65,671.08

10 Giridih 1,21,796 Giridih east 1,22,074.98

11 Hazaribagh (West) 1,77,537 Hazaribagh West 1,27,893.48

12 Hazaribagh (East) 1,03,798 Hazaribagh East 63,436.42

13 Bokaro 51,901 Bokaro 54,393.00

14 Chatra South 1,02,580 Ramgarh 50,399.44

15 Chatra North 93,372 Chatra South 1,17,082.06

16 Koderma 89,038 Chatra North 91,288.40

17 Dhanbad 26,380 Koderma 64,806.69

18 Daltenganj South 1,04,170 Dhanbad 20,612.03

19 Daltenganj North 1,30,648 Medninagar 1,51,783.95

20 Garhwa South 1,24,135 Garhwa South 86,717.00

21 Garhwa North 78,705 Garhwa North 79,367.00

22 Latehar 1,32,384 Latehar 1,30,658.01

23 Deoghar 76,788 Deoghar 23,875.84

24 Dumka 1,48,612 Jamtara 11,590.30

25 Sahebganj 12,797 Sahebganj 12,959.98

26 Giridih Afforestation 16,803 Giridih West 16,242.01

Total 23,60,547 Dumka 39,939.40

Godda 20,687.77

Pakur 9,287.18

Simdega 55,614.44

Khunti 59,481.00

Wildlife Division

Hazaribagh

73,783.00

Core Area, PTR 57,589.00

Buffer Area, PTR 73,089.00

Wild life division Ranchi 18,318.00

Elephant Project,

Jamshedpur

19,287.00

Total 22,79,452.66

Note: Divisions have been reorganised time to time after the year 2000. At present, there are 31 territorial

divisions and five wildlife divisions excluding one biological park having territorial jurisdiction.

Appendices

87

Appendix-2.3.8 (Referred to in paragraph 2.3.5.1 (ii); page 59)

Cases of unauthorised utilisation of forest land for non-forest purpose

Sl.

No.

Name of project User

agency

Area involved

(in hectare)

Since Concerned

forest

division

1 Konar OCP CCL 288.26 2014 Bokaro

2 North Koel Multipurpose

Dam / Kutku Dam

WRD 557.80 1982 Core Area,

PTR

3 Construction of

Government Building

BCD 47.93 1989 Dumka

4 Urimari OCP CCL 77.78 2010 Hazaribagh

(West)

5 Sonua (Medium)

Reservoir Scheme

WRD 26.60 1982 Porahat

6 Subernarekha Multi-

purpose project

WRD 1,655.55 2011 Jamshedpur

7 Ramrekha Reservoir WD

32.28 1991 Simdega

8 Kansjore Reservoir 3.31 1989

Total 2,689.51

Appendix-2.4.1

(Referred to in paragraph 2.4.1; page 61) Execution of road works in four packages

Name of roads with

package number

TS value

(`̀̀̀ in

crore)

Agreement

value

(`̀̀̀ in crore)

Date of

agreement

Scheduled

date of

completion

Date of

stoppage

of works

Value of

completed

works

( `̀̀̀ in crore)

Date of

rescinding

Time

taken to

rescind

Namudag to

Barwaikala, (1401

(1)) and NH to Lali

(1401 (2))

3.37 1.85 19/01/2010 18/01/2011 21/06/2013 0.59 17/09/2016 38 months

Kutmu to Bhatko

(1402 (1)) and Pokhri

to Semari (1402 (2))

1.70 1.59 26/05/2009 25/05/2010 22/12/2011 0.71 12/03/2013 14 months

NH to Antikheta

(1404(1))

3.33 3.23 06/07/2009 05/07/2010 31/01/2013 1.14 06/09/2016 43 months

T01 to Jungur

(1405(1)); T02 to

Bichalidag (1405(1))

and Sadwadih to

Janho (8)

3.47 3.27 06/10/2009 05/10/2010 02/12/2012 1.04 17/09/2016 45 months

Total- eight roads 11.87 9.94 3.48


88

Appendix-2.4.2

(Referred to in paragraph 2.4.3; page 65)

Provision of police guards to private persons without approval of Home Secretary

Sl.

No.

Name and Designation of person

S/Shri

Detail of bodyguard on deputation

Sl.

No.

Designation Date of

Deputation

1 Dr. H P Narayan, Neuro Surgeon 01 Constable 1646 3 May 2009

2 Dr. K.K. Sinha, Bariyatu Road, Ranchi 02 Head Constable

24

16 November 1999

03 Head Constable

556

3 Manjur Ansari Apollo Hospital and Haj Committee

Chairman

04 Constable 651 8 March 2011

4 Dr. S N Yadav, Karamtoli, Ranchi 05 Constable 2908 26 September 2012

06 Constable 1334

5 Raj Kumar Agrawal and Siddhant Jain, Director of

Orchid Hospital, Lalpur

07 Constable 3302 15 December 2014

08 Head Constable

702

15 September 2014

6 Dr. Saroj Rai, Ishan Skin Care Hospital, Medical

Chowk, Bariyatu


7 Dr. Z. Hoda, Jha. Hospital, Kanta Toli Chowk, Ranchi 10 Constable 707 7 August 2014

8 Dr. Vinita Prasad, Ratu Road, Ranchi 11 Constable 1051 7 August 2014

9 Dr Pradip Kumar Verma, Sarla Birla Public School,

Mahilaung, Tatisilwai


10 Akhilesh Kumar Pandey 13 Constable 249 8 December 2015

11 Ram Singh Principal Delhi Public School, Ranchi 14 Constable 2005 11 December 2015

12 Arup Chatarji, Director, News 11, Kantatoli 15 Constable 1119 20 July 2011

16 Constable 2598 21 April 2011

13 Harivansh Narayan Singh, Prabhat Khabar Editor,

Kokar, Ranchi

17 Constable 3101 14 June 2009

14 Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Director Kashish News,

Ranchi

18 Constable 445 22 August 2009

15 Baidyanath Mishra, Director, Sanmarg, Kishoreganj 19 Constable 2603 14 February 2012

16 Prem Shankar, Director Sanmarg Hindi Dainik, Chutia 20 Constable 353 24 October 2009

17 Vikash Dhanuka, Builder, Ranchi 21 Constable 2196 15 March 2009

18 Vijay Dhanuka, Builder, Saket Nagar, Kanke Road,

Ranchi


19 Shravan Jain (Builder) Barddhaman Compound,

Lalpur, Ranchi

23 Constable 2316 06 January 2015

20 Amar Bansal, Panchvati Plaza, Ranchi 24 Constable 3324 26 September 2011

25 Constable 2713 12 October 2011

21 Ranjan Kumar Manager Hotlips, Ranchi 26 Constable 3359 22 June 2012

22 Lal Ranjan Nath Shahdev, Entrepreneur, Pandra,

Ranchi


23 Chhavi Virmani, Kadru, Ranchi 28 Constable 1697 07 September 2011

24 Md. S M Alkama Kadari, Abulalai, Doranda, Ranchi 29

Head Constable

105

28 May 2012


25 Ranvijay Pradhan, Industrialist, Tupudana 31 Constable 127 13 December 2012

26 Sonu Agrawal, Business man, Buti More, Ranchi 32 Constable 16 24 December 2014


27 Kripa Shankar Singh, Member Executive Committee,

B J P, Ranchi



28 Panchm Singh, Builder, Morhabadi 36 Head Constable

232

27 May 2009

29 Parma Singh, R R D A, Chairman, Ranchi Regional

Development Authority, Builder, Morabadi



Appendices

89

30 Vinay Singh, Nexogen Agency Tupudana, Ranchi 39 Constable 1340 16 February 2012

31 Bhim Singh Munda, Chairman Nilay Education Trust

Group of Institute, Ranchi


32 Pranav Kumar Singh, Classic Coal Construction

Private Ltd., Fourth Flour, Pulsar Plaza, Line Tank

Road, Ranchi


33 Samir Lohia, Director, Usha Martin, Tatisilwai 42 Constable 737 04 April 2012

34 Ranjan Kumar, R K Construction, Ranchi 43 Constable 500 10 May 2012

35 Deepak Rungta, Industrialist, Karamloli Chowk,

Pushpanjali Sadan


36 Sudesh Kedia, Coal Businessman, Sukhdevnagar,

Ranchi

45 Head Constable

114

18 April 2015

37 Shri Vinod Kumar Jaisawal, Managing Director of M/s

Vinod Kumar Construction Private Ltd, Ranchi.


38 Ranjan Singh, Builder, Morabadi, Ranchi 47 Constable 879 04 August 2009

39 Sanjay Kumar Sarda, Sunrise pharma, Ranchi 48 Constable 148 15 August 2015

40 Tilak Ajamani, Business man, Ranchi 49 Constable 3014 11 February 2015

41 Anand Jain Harihar Ganj, Bariyatu, (Mine), Ranchi 50 Constable 2301 26 August 2015

42 Vinod Kumar, Builder, Kushum Bihar, Road no. 07,

Morahabadi, Ranchi

51 Constable 2741 29 July 2015

43 Rajesh Shrivastava (Builder) Shivani Hotel

Enterprises, Ranchi

52 Constable1915 07 September 2015

44 Anup Chawala (Business man), Prem Nivas, PP

Compound, Sujata Chowk, Ranchi


54 Head Constable

502

13 July 2015

45 Vishnu Agrawal, Businessman, Gandhi Nagar, Kanke

Road, Ranchi


56 Constable 2723 26 September 2017

46 Niranjan Sharma, Rajasthan Kalewalay, Lalpur,

Ranchi,


47 Rohit Agrawal, Adarsh House Private Limited,

Circular Road, Ranchi

58 Constable3270

12 June 2017

48 M/s Sanjeet, Excel Venture Private Ltd, Ranchi. 59 Constable 3390 16 September 2015

49 Shri Prakash Sahu, (Transporter), Ratu, Ranchi 60 Constable 3642 13 September 2015

50 Mrinal Singh, (Builder), Devimandap Road, Hesal,

near Chaudhary Nursing Home, Pandra Out Post

61 Constable 1691 02September 2015

51 Sunil Kumar Singh, Director, Divyani Motor 62 Constable 1724 16 July 2015

52 RK Semsan Birsa Chowk, Hatia Station Road, Ranchi 63 Constable 1714 06 March 2015

53 Shri Ratan Tirki, Scheduled Tribes Advisory Council,

Ranchi



54 Rishikesh Rai, Builder, Park Prime, Morabadi 66 Constable 1768 15 June 2012


55 Vikash Kumar Agrawal, Kanke Road, Ranchi 68 Constable 2647 28 March 2010


56 Deepak Kumar Bharthoria, New AG Co-operative

Colony, Kadru, Ranchi


57 Tapas Mallick, Personal Advisor to Hon. Ex. CM

Arjun Munda


58 Shrimati Sundari Tirkey, Ex. Zila Parishad

Adhayaksh

72 Constable 1530 10 May 2011

59 Abhishek Jha, Director Diagnostic Imaging Centre,

Bariatu, Ranchi



60 Dipak Kumar Sinha, Pradesh Upadhyaksh, BJP,

Argora, Ranchi


61 Prince Kumar Srivastava, Doranda, Ranchi 76 Constable 2884 09 November 2015

62 Shrimati Sabi Devi, W/o Late Tileshwar Sahu,

Indira Gandhi Chowk, Chutia, Ranchi



90

63 Arun Sahu

S/o Late Tileshwar Sahu, Ranchi



64 Shrimati Seema Sharma, BJP Pradesh Upadhyaksh 80 Constable 1754 07 January 2015

65 Basant Soren, S/o Ex. CM Shibu Soren 81 Constable 1987 10 January 2013

66 Ajay Nath Sahdeo, Ex-Mayor Ranchi 82 Constable 1338 25 April 2009

67 Budhwa Oraon International runner JMM leader 83 Constable 1083 23 July 2015

68 Lav Bhatia, Punjab Sweet House, Ranchi 84 Constable 3272 14 June 2014

69 Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Personal Advisor to Babu Lal

Marandi, Ex-CM

85 Head constable

222

05 September 2009


70 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sahu, Rashtriya Adhyaksh Sadan

Vikash Party, Station Road Virsa Chowk Hatia


71 Samrendra Kumar, Assistant Engineer, H95 Harmu

Housing Colony, Ranchi



72 Manjul Kerketta, Birsa Nagar Ranchi 90 Constable 1668 07 February 2016

73 Shrimati Deepika Sahu, Sharna Toli, Pundag, Out Post 91 Constable 2353 04 September 2016


74 Manoj Kumar Gupta, Director NIBM, Ranchi 93 Constable 2791 17September 2016

75 Saryu Sahu, Irgu Toli Sukhdeo Nagar Thana, Ranchi 94 Constable 3200 15September 2016

76 PhulChand Tirkey, Kendriya Sarna Samiti Adhayaksh,

Boriya Road Ranchi

95 Constable 721 17October 2016

77 Manoj Kumar Singh, Nidan Building Karamtoli, Road,

Ranchi


78 Shrimati Seema Sahu Pumdag 97 Constable 2587 27 October 2016

79 Rajesh Kumar Singh, JC Road, Lalpur, Ranchi 98 Constable 3568 29 October 2016

80 Dr. Om Prakash Singh, Vinayak Hospital Harmu

Ranchi

99 Constable 2406 20 November 2012

81 Ashish Bhatia, Punjab Sweet, Circular Road, Ranchi 100 Constable 3153 20 November 2016

82 Kush Bhatia, Punjab Sweet, Circular Road, Ranchi 101 Constable 3646 20 November 2016

83 Gopal Sharan Singh, Maa Mudrika Tower, Harmu,

Ranchi


84 Pandit Lalit Narayan Ojha, Adhyaksh Truck

Association, Piska more, Ranchi,

103 Head constable

517

19 March 2017

85 Vikash Kumar Pandey, Argora Housing Colony,

Beside S-12


86 Hemant Das, Pradesh Hq. Office minister cum

incharge, BJP, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi


87 Mahesh Mahto, Samajik Karyakarta, near Power

House, Sai Mandir Road, Ratu


88 Dr. Amit Prakash, Sai Aastha Apartment, Flat No.-02F,

opposite DA Mission Hospital, Buti Road, Bariyatu,

Ranchi


89 Bablu Munda, Sarna Samiti, Morahabadi, Ranchi 108 Constable 178 12 May 2017

90 Principal, Marwari College, Ranchi

(i) Dr. J. Ahmad (05 November 2011 to 30 June 2011)

(ii) Dr. Ram Lal Ram (1 July 2011 to 10 July 2011)

(iii) Dr. Manju Sinha (11 July 2011 to 27 July 2012)

(iv) U C Mehta (28 July 2012 to 2 July 2013)

(v) Dr. Ranjit Singh (3 July 2013 to 31 January 2017)

(vi) Prof A.K. Malkani (1 February 2017 to 21 May 2017)

(vii) Dr. A N Ojha (20 May 2017 till date(May 2018)


91 Mohammad Mustafa Ansari, Samajik karyakarta,

Gram-Hesal, Thana- Angara, Ranchi


92 Manoj Kumar Sahu, Gram-Sadham, Thana- Budhmu,

Zila- Ranchi


Appendices

91

93 Rana Pratap Singh, A-2, 128 Dhurwa, Ranchi 112 Constable 3144 30 August 2017

94 Rajan Singh Raja, Sachiv, Vishthapit Prabhavit Coal

union, Khelari Thana, Ranchi


95 Haji Arshad Ayun, Central Moharram Committee,

Ratu Road, Ranchi


96 Madan Singh, Sai Colony, Chutia, Ranchi 115 Constable 2626 28 September 2017

97 Pascal Oraon, Mukhia, Gram- Kotpali, Thana-

Narkopi, District- Ranchi


Appendix-2.4.3

(Referred to in paragraph 2.4.5; page 66) Details of work wise administrative approval and technical sanction

Sl.

No.

Name of work AA TS Agreement

Amount

Completion

date

1 Construction of CHC

building at Dubrajpur

in Tundi block of

Dhanbad

Secretary, Health, Medical

Education and Family

Welfare Department

(HME&FWD), Government

of Jharkhand

` 3.18 crore (December

2007)

Chief Engineer Rural

Development Special

Zone, Ranchi

` 3.76 crore (July 2008)

Departmental

work and

partially

through tender

April 2011

2 Upgradation of PHC

to CHC building,

Kudu, Lohardaga

HME&FWD, Government of

Jharkhand

` 3.54 crore (May 2008)

Chief Engineer Rural

Development Special

Zone, Ranchi

` 3.52 crore (February

2008)

Departmental

work and

partially

through tender

June 2012

3 Construction of

Primary Health Centre

and residential

quarters at Pesrar,

Lohardaga


Jharkhand

` 1.16 crore (December

2008)

Chief Engineer,

Engineering Cell,

HME&FWD,


` 1.28 Crore (August

2009)

` 1.31 crore

(June 2010)

March 2012

4 Construction of State

Ayurvedic Medical

College at Chaibasa


Jharkhand

` 3.73 crore (January 2008)

and granted approval of

revised AA in March 2016

Chief Engineer, REO,

Chotanagpur and Santhal

Pargana Zone, Ranchi

` 3.73 crore, (December

2007)

Technical Approval on

revised estimates was

granted thrice in March

2013, July 2014 and

November 2015

Departmental

work and

partially

through tender

March 2009

5 Construction of a

regional Food and

Drug Laboratory at

Dumka.


Jharkhand

` 1.75 crore (March 2013)

Chief Engineer,

Engineering Cell,

HME&FWD,


` 1.75 crore

( December 2012)

Building

completed at

` 1.75 crore

Building

constructed

and handed

over to Civil

Surgeon

cum Chief

Medical

Officer,

Dumka in

April 2015

Date post:	13-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Report of the - Comptroller and Auditor General of India PDF/Reporty No. 3 of... · 2018-10-01 ·...

Documents